Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearings regarding Communist espionage in the United States Government. Hearings"

See other formats

















Public Law 601 

(Section 121, Subsection Q (2) ) 

DECEMBER 7, 8, 9, 10, AND 14, 1948 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities 

80408 WASHINGTON : 1948 




JAN IX 1949 


J. PAUNELL THOMAS, New Jersey, Chairman 

KAUL E. MUNDT, South Dakota JOHN S. \VO(»I>, Gcoifria 

.lOIIX MiDOWELL. rcnnsylvania JOHN E. RANKIN, Mississippi 



RuiiKKT E. STKIPLING, Chief lnve»ti(intor 
BENJAMIN MANDEL, Diri'rtor of KcHcuich 

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota, Chairman 
JOHN MCDOWELL, Pennsylvania JOHN E. RANKIN, Mississippi 

RICHARD M. NIXON, California F. EDWARD HUBERT, Louisiana 

RICHARD B. VAIL, Illinois 

Note. — Page numbering follows preceding hearings to allow continuity in 
complete sets of hearings for this session of Congress. 



December 7, 1948 : 

Testimony of — Page. 

Robert E. Stripling 1380 

William Wheeler 1381 

Keith B. Lewis 1385 

Smiiner Welles 1386 

John Peurifoy 1391 

December 8, 1948 : 
Testimony of — 

Isaac Don Levine 1399 

December 9, 1948 : 
Testimony of — 

Henry J. Wadleigh 1429 

Courtney PI Owens 1449 

December 10, 1948 : 
Testimony of — 

Nathan L. Levine __ 1451 

December 14, 1948 : 
Testimony of — 

Marion Bachrach 1467 

Index _ 1475 




United States House of Representatives, 

Special Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ D. G. 

The subcoinmittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p. m., in tlie Caucus 
Room, Old House Office Building, Hon. Karl E. Mundt (acting 
chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Representatives Karl E. Mundt (act- 
ing chairman), John McDowell, Richard M. Nixon, Richard B. Vail, 
John E'. Rankin, and F. Edward Hebert. 

Staff members present: Robert E. Stripling, chief investigator; 
William A. Wheeler, investigator; and A. S. Poore. editor. 

Mr. Mundt. The committee will please come to order. 

We have present this afternoon Mr. McDowell, Mr. Nixon, Mr. 
Vail, Mr. Rankin, Mr. Hebert, and Mr. Mundt, as acting chairman. 

These hearings are a resiunption of the hearings which started on 
August 3, continued until September 9, and follow the publication 
of an interim report, Avhat came to be called generally in the news- 
papers as the Hiss-Chambers situation. 

The calling of the hearing at this particular time was necessitated 
by the rather startling development and disclosures of December 2, 
and the finding of some missing files and documents from the State 
Department which were located in an entirely unofficial and unwar- 
ranted location. [Laughter.] 

The purpose of the hearing is to determine who took those secret 
documents from the State Department and delivered them to Mr. 

Secondly, we want to determine how many of these documents, if 
any, or if all, reached Russian agents themselves. 

Third, we want to determine whether or not this espionage ring 
which ferreted these important documents from the State Depart- 
ment into the hands of the man who at the time is a self-confessed 
member of the Communist espionage ring, we wish to determine 
whether that espionage ring is still operating in Government in 

And, in the fourth place, we desire to determine the importance to 
the enemy and the unwarranted sources of the material which was 
taken from the State Department without authority and justification. 

We had expected to have JNIr. Whittaker Chambers here as our 
first witness this afternoon, but due to the fact that the grand jury 
has been reconvened in New York City for the purpose of considering 
the evidence discovered by oUr committee investigators, and since 



they have subpenaed Mr. "Wliittaker Chambers, together Avith an in- 
vest igator from our conniiittee, and copies of some of the documents 
obtained by our investigators, we shall not have Mr. Wliittaker Cham- 
bers testify this afternoon. 

Instead we shall direct our attention jirimarily to the fourtli point 
which I mentionetl, determining the imijorlance to our national 
securitv of these documents which were located on the INIarvland 

For that purpose the (^hair is going to call as the iirst witness, 
the chief investigator of the connnittee, Mr. Kobert E. Strii)ling, 
and ask him to take the stand, and be sworn at this time. 

Mr. Hkukkt. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Hebert. 

Mr. IIebkkt. I make a motion we go into executive session. 

Mr. MuNDT. Does anyone second the motion? 

Mr. Rankin. I second the motion. 

Mr. MuNDT. Those in favor of going into executive session say 

(Chorus of '"ayes.") 

Mr. MuNDT. Those opposed ? 

The ''aves'- have it. We will m) into executive session at this time. 

(At this point, the connnittee retired into executive session — the 
])roceedings in executive session not being reported — resuming in 
open session at 3 p. m. as follows :) 

Mr. Mi'NOT. The commit d'e will come to order. 

Perhaps the Chair shouUl explain to the guest, the })ress antl the 
committee, why we went into an executive session and out again so 
rapidly. It was simply because we have assembled here tothiy from 
the various home districts in which we live without any o]iportunity 
to consult with each other. Mr. Ilcbert felt, and I think his idea 
was sound, that we should try to get together and discuss among 
ourselves the policy and the program of the committee before open- 
iiiir the heai'injxs. Tliat wo have done, and we are now in unanimous 
agreement that we shall proceed in accordance with the outline made 
by the chairman at the opening of the meeting. 

The Chair will call Mr. Stripling as the first witness. 

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you ai'e about to give will 
be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you 

Mr. Stripling. I do. 


Mr. MuNDT. You may proceed, Mr. Stripling. 

Mr. Rankin. I want to say. Mi-. Chaii-man. that that vote a little 
while ago was the Iirst thing the Democrats have won since November 
the 2d. 

Mr. MuNDT. That is because the Republicans didn't vote, just like 
in Noveml)er. 

Mr. Stiui'MNc. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the committee's instruc- 
tions to continue and to conclude, if jwssible, the investigation of the 
alleged Communist apparatus which operated within the Government 
from ir>34 to 103H. the staff of the connuitte(\ since the conclusion of 


the last public hearing on September 9, has been continuing its inves- 
tigation of the entire matter of the Hiss-Chambers controversy. 

On December 2 of this year, I served a subpena upon Whittaker 
Chambers, calling upon him to produce all documents in his posses- 
sion relating to Alger Hiss, John Abt, Lee Pressman, Harold Ware, 
Alexander Stephens, Victor Perlo, Elizabeth T. Bentley, Harry Dexter 
White, George Silverman, IrVing Kaplan, Nathan Witt, Henry Col- 
lins, Pricilla Hiss, Donald Hiss, and all other material in documen- 
tary form which has to do with the investigation of espionage in the 
Federal Government. 

Pursuant to this subpena, Mr. Chambers produced certain micro- 
films, M'hich we now have in the committee's possession. I should 
like first to have these microfilms identified, and I ask that Mr. Wil- 
liam Wlieeler, investigator, take the stand. 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Wheeler, do you solemnly swear the testimony 
you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God^ 

Mr. Wheeler. I do. 

Mr. MuNDT. Take the stand. 


Mr. Stripling. Mr. Wheeler, would you state your full name and 
present address? 

Mr. Wheeler. William A. Wlieeler, Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Stripling. You are an investigator for the Committee on Un- 
American Activities ? 

Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Stripling. How long have you been an investigator? 

Mr. Wheeler. Approximately 18 months. 

Mr. Stripling. Where were you employed prior to your service 
with the Committee on Un-American Activities ? 

Mr. AViieeler. With the United States Secret Service, Treasury 

Mr. Stripling. And how long were you employed by the Secret 
Service ? 

Mr. Wheeler. Well, from 1943 until July 31, 1947, However, I was 
in the Army for a period of 22 months. 

Mr. Stripling. While you were in the Army, were you assigned to 
any investigative unit? 

Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir; I was in the criminal investigation divi- 
sion as an agent. 

Mr. Stripling. Under the Provost Marshal's office ? 

Mr. Wheeler. That is correct. 

Mr. Stripling. Mr. Wheeler, on December 2, 1948, did I call you 
to my office, 225 Old House Office Building? 

Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Stripling. Were you present when Mr. Donald T. Appell, an 
investigator for the committee, was also present ? 

Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Stripling. And at that time did I instruct you and Mr. Appell 
to accompany Mr. Wliittaker Chambers to his home at Westminster, 
Md., to receive certain documents and information which were called 
for in the subpena which had been served upon him? 


Mr. WiiEELEK. That is correct. 

Mr. Stiui'linc;. Did you accompany Mr. Chambers to Westminster? 

Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sthii'mx(j. Did Mr. Donald T. Ai)pell accompany you^ 

Mr. ^^'I^:KLKK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Strii'Lix<j. Wliat time did you arrive at A\\'stuiiMster, or al 
tlie farm of Mr. Chambers? 

Mr. WiiEELEH. A|)pr()ximately 10:45 p. m. 

Mr. Stripling. Did he at that time pi-o(hice any records or material 
in response to the subpena ? 

Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Striplixg. Would you describe to the committee what he pro- 
duced ? 

Mr. Wheeler. He produced three aluminum containers that later 
proved to have film in them; he produced two rolls of developed Jio- 
millimeter film. 

Mr. 8trh'L1N(;. Where was this material taken from? 

Mr. Wheeler. It was taken from a punii)kin. 

Mr. Stripling. Would you describe to the committee the circum- 
stances undei- which Mr. Chambers produced this niici-ojilm i 

IVIr. Wheeler. We went into ^Ir. Chambers' house, and he was 
lo()kin<r for a flashli<rht; he could not find one, and he turned on the 
yard li<j:hts. We then w^ent out into this field, and he picked up several 
]^uni])kins and i)ut them back down; then ho picked one up and said, 
"Here is what you are looking- for.'' He pulled the top off' of it, and 
handed it to me; I reached in and pulled out the material. 

Mr. Stripling. Was the material which he handed to you, or which 
you i-eached in and pulled out, the containers which I now hand you, 
and which have been identified? 

I now hand you a container which shall be known as exhibit 1, ask 
you to examine it and tell the conunittee whether or not it is the con- 
tainer which you obtained from Mr. Chambei-s. 

IMr. "Wheeler. This is the container. It has my initial on it, the 
date 12-2—48; the top has a cross mark which I placed on it. 

Mr, S'raiPLiNG. You placed that upon it ? 

Mr. Wheeler. It had tape on it when we orio-inally jiot it. 

Mr. Stripling. Was this particular film undeveloped at the \\^^^v 
you obtained it? 

Mr. Wheeler. Well, IVIr. Api^ell 

Mr. Stripling. Yes, but I mean tlie film had not been developed? 

Mr. Wheeler. That is correct. 

IVIr. Stripling. I shoAv you another container, and ask you if you 
can identify it. It shall be known as exhibit 2. 

Mr. WiiEELKR. Yes. sir; it has my initial on it ; also the date 12-2-48. 
The to}) has an ''X'" which I placed on it. 

Mr. Stripling. I show you another container which shall be marked 
as exhibit .'^), and ask you to identify it. 

Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir; it has my initial on it; the date 12-2-48. 
The to]) is nuirked. It is the same container. 

Mr. Stripling. In addition, was there also other film which was 
not in containers? 


Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. Also in the material was a small package 
wrapped in waxed paper with a rubber band around it. 

Mr. Stripling. Is this the material which you obtained in the 
waxed paper? 

Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir; it has my initial and the date 12-2-48. I 
identify it as the material. 

Mr. Stripling. Now, after this material w^as obtained from Mr. 
Chambers, did you and Mr. Appell then proceed to Washington ? 

Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. We proceeded to Westminster, where we 
stopped and identified all the material with the identifying marks. 

Mr. Stripling. Where did you identify the material? 

Mr. Wheeler. It was the American Cafe in Westminster. 

Mr. Stripling. You stopped there at approximately what time ? 

Mr. Wheeler. I would say about 5 minutes after 11. 

Mr. Stripling. Then you and Mr. Appell proceeded to Washing- 
ton ? 

Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Mundt. p. m., or a. m., the 5 after 11? 

Mr. Wheeler. P. m., sir. 

Mr. Stripling. When you arrived in Washington, who kept pos- 
session of the film? 

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. A])pell. 

Mr. Stripling. Now, Mr. Chairman, on the morning of December 
3, Mr. Appell and Mr. Wheeler reported to the office at about 9 : 15. 
We opened the film which had been developed, and it was apparent 
from an examination of it that it contained pictures of documents 
which appeared to be from a department of the Government. I then 
detailed Mr. Wheeler to take this particular film which had been de- 
veloped to a photographic technician, which he did, and the following 
documents or prints were made from the microfilm or film which was 
obtained from Mv. Chambers. 

I would like for Mr. Wheeler to identify these documents as prints 
which were made in his presence. I am going to ask that he examine 
each document himself without any further identification at this time. 
He was present when each document was printed from the microfilm. 

Mr. Wheeler. Each document has my initials on the back and the 
date, Mr. Chairman. 

j\Ir. Mundt. Very well. You will examine these series and find out 
if they are all ones you have seen. 

Mr. Stripling. Mr. AVheeler, is it correct that each one of those 
documents are numbered in consecutive order ? When the picture was 
made, a number was placed in the corner? 

Mr. Wheeler. No ; this number was on the microfilm. 

Mr. Stripling. It was on the microfilm ? 

Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Stripling. While Mr. Wheeler is examining these documents, 
Mr. Chairman, I would state what was done with these undeveloped 

Mr. Appell. who, if he were here, would take the witness stand, but 
who is before the gi'and jury in New York, was instructed to take the 
undeveloped film to the Veterans' Administration laboratory where it 
was developed. Some of it, apparently due to age, didn't print very 
clearly. These particular prints are still in the process of develop- 


ment, I might say, and we expect to have various technicians in the 
(lovernnient work fnrtlier n])on them in an etfoi't to hrinjx tliem out. 

Mr. IIkhkht. Mr. Striplin<^, may 1 ask you a (juestion there ^ 

Mr. STinrLiNG, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hkhert. ITow did ^fr. AVheeler know it was not a developed 

Mr. vS'nuri.ixu. You describe that, Mr. Wiieeler. 

Mr. Wheelkr. This particular film here that was in the alumimim 
cylinders, ]\fr. Chainl)ers told us it was uTuleveloj)ed, and to take 
care of it. We diihTt open it and the following day. Decembei- -i, 
Ml". Ai)pell took tiu'se cylinders over to the Veterans' Administration 
where they were develo})ed. 

Mr. Hemekt. Well, the umleveloj>ed film was in the aluminum cyl- 
inder, and the otheis were in what '. 

Mr. WiiEEEEK. Tliey were wrapped in waxed paper. 

Mr. Heuert. The others were wrapped in waxed paper? 

Mr. Wheeler. The developed. 

Ml-. IIei'.ert. And the ones that were undeveloped were in an alu- 
minum cylinder? 

Mr. Wheeler. That is right. 

Mr. Hebert. Which you knew ahead of time were not developed? 

Mr. Wheeler. That is right. 

Mr. Stripling. And at the Veterans' Administration they reported 
back some of it was not discernible because of age ? 

Mr. Wheeler. That is correct. 

Mr. Hehert. There would be no doubt it is old film, that is what I 
want to establish. 

Mr. Wheeler. It has been established, I believe. 

Mr. Hebert. Can you tell me this: Can it be established by the 
marking on the film what year those films were printed^ 

Mr. Strh'lixg. Yes, sir. I will ask, Mr. Chairman, to call another 
witness at this point. 

Mr. Hebert. To establish that ? 

Mr. Striplixg. To establish that on a particular lilin. We have 
not been able to ascertain it all, but the principal film which we are 
concerned with here can be identified. 

Mr. Rankin. Let him finish identifying those copies there, first. 

Mr. Wheeler. I can identify all those documents as coming from 
the developed film, this group here. 

Now, Mr. Stripling, do you wish me to go into the other group? 

Mr. Striplixg. After ^Ir. A]>pell had the film develo])ed at the 
Veterans' Administration, Mr. Chairman, I instructed him to pro- 
ceed to the laboratory where Mr. Wheeler and the laboratory techni- 
cian were working on the printing of the films which had already 
been developed. Mr. Appell took the film there and Mr. Wheeler 
was present while an effort was made to bring these ])rints out. 

As you can see, some of them are fairly legible; othei-s are almost 

But you were present, were you not, Mr. '^^^leeler, when this group 
of films was printed? 

]\rr. Wheeler. Yes, sir; I assisted in the printing of those films. 

Mr. Stripling. Are there any further questions of Mr. Wheeler? 

Mr. ^IrxuT. ^fr. Wheeler, have you completed ideut ifying all of the 
documents now? 


Mr. Wheeler. I haven't identified this stack as yet, sir. 

Mr. MuNDT. Perhaps you had better continue until you identify 
them all, because they will continue to play an important part in all 
these hearings. 

Mr. McDowell. Many of them are perfectly legible, however? 

Mr. ^^TRiPLiNG. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Wheeler, you have your initials on the back of each one of these 
prints, is that correct ? 

Mr. Wheeler. That is correct, my initials and the date, 12-3^8. 

Mr. Stripling. You submitted an exact copy of these documents 
to the grand jury yesterday ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Stripling. In New York City ? 

Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, I identify this group of documents as the group 
of documents I assisted in the printing of. The films from which 
the documents were printed were given to me by Mr. Appell. 

Mr. Stripling. That is all, Mr. Chairman, unless there are further 

]\Ir. MuNDT. Any questions of Mr. Wlieeler from the committee ? 

(No response.) 

Mr. MuNDT. Thank you, Mr. Wheeler. 

Mr. Stripling, will you call the next witness ? 

Mr. Stripling. Yes ; I would like to call Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. Mundt. Mr. Lewis, do you solemnly swear the testimony you 
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Lewis. I do. 

Mr. Mundt. Just be seated, please. 


Mr. Stripling. Mr. Lewis, would you please state your full name? 

Mr. Lewis. Keith B. Lewis. 

Mr. Stripling. What is your present address ? 

Mr. Lewis. 2009 Peabody Street, Hyattsville, Md. 

Mr. Stripling. And what is your occupation ? 

Mr. Lewis. I am manager of the Washington office for Eastman 
Kodak Co. 

Mr. Stripling. How long have you been manager ? 

Mr. Lewis. Since July of 1944. 

Mr. Stripling. Mr. Lewis, did you receive a telephone request yes- 
terday to come to the office of Representative Nixon ? 

Mr. Lewis. I did ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Stripling. Wlien you arrived, were you handed a roll of film 
which was manufactured by the Eastman Co. ? 

Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Stripling. I show you this roll of film and ask you if it is the 
one that was exhibited to you yesterday ? 

Mr. Lewis. That's right, Mr. Stripling. This is the film that you 
gave to me yesterday. 

Mr. Stripling. At our request, did you communicate with your 
headquarters to determine the year in which this film was made ? 

Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir. 


Mr. Stripltxg, And what year was tliis film made? 

Mr. Lewis. This fihn was iiianufactuied by Eastman Kodak Co. in 

Mr. STKirLiNG. That is all, Mr. Cliairman. 

Thank you. 

Mr. ^luNDT. Yon may call the next witness, 

Mr. Stripling. The next witness, Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Sumner 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Welles, do you solemnly swear the testimony yon 
are about to <>iye is the truth, the whole truth, and nothin<^ but tlie 
truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Weli.ks. I do. 

Mr. MuxDT. You may be seated. 


Mr. MuNDT. Will you tell the committee, Mr. Welles, the period 
of time in which you served as Under Secretary of State ? 

Mr. Weixes. From May 1937 until September 1943. 

i\Ir. ^IrNnr. Our reason for callin<T you as a witness. Mr. Welles, is 
because it was durinp; the })ei'iod when you were T"^nder Secretary of 
State that many of these documents which are exhibits were dated and 
during which they were presumably taken from the State DeiMirt- 
ment. It is an established policy of the House Committee on TTn- 
American Activities that whenever possible, and in the public interest, 
jjublic business shall be conducted publicly. We have adopted the 
policy, therefore, of taking the ])ublic into our confidence whenever 
that can be done in hearings of this type, without injury to anybody's 
individual character, or without injury to the public interest. 

We are confronted today with this array of documents, many of 
them secret in nature, taken from the State Department. 

We have asked you to come before us ]irimnrily to seek your counsel, 
in the first ])lace because you were Under Secretary of State, and in 
the second place, because you are now a private citizen and can give 
an objective opinion, since you are no longer connected with the De- 
pai'tment of State, as to whether or not the information contained in 
these documents is of such a nature and is of such vital concern to 
our national security, or high diplomatic purposes that it .would be 
against the public interest to have them put in the public rex*ord. 

For that reason, so that you can counsel us wisely. T have asked the 
chief investigator to show you a few of these documents, to identify 
them sufficiently for the record without disclosing their contents, and 
then ask you to take your time and read them — some of which have 
been shown you ]>reviously — then to tell the conmiittee whether or 
not in your opinion it would be in the public interest to put these in 
the records where the public can have access to them. 

Mr. Hehert. Mr. Chairman, may I say by "in the public interest" 
you mean the national security? 

^^r. MrxDT. The national security. It is not the purpose of this 
committee, I might add, to take out of the record documents which 
would simjdy prove eml)arrassing to jieojile perhaps because they were 
in the recoi-d, but if the matei-ial talcen from those microfilms is of 
vital significance to our national security, or if its pul)li(:ition might 


prove injurious to our diplomatic policies, this committee on its own, 
then, certainly has no desire to disclose the contents of those documents. 

So we would like to have your evaluation on that basis, whether it 
is of such significance that its publication might prove injurious to 
the national security interests of America, 

Mr. Stripling. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of identifying the 
documents, I would like to ask Mr. Welles if the reading aloud into 
the record of the material down to here would in any wise violate any 
code or restriction of the parties ? 

Mr. Welles. No, in no way at all, Mr. Stripling. 

Mr. Stripling. This document, Mr. Chairman, which contains the 
number 53 in the corner, and taken from the microfilm which has 
just been identified by Mr. Lewis, states as follows; it has a stamp 
in the right-hand corner which says, "Assistant Secretary of State, 
January U, 1938 : 

"Mr. Sayre" — that is a part of the stamp. It is dated "Paris, 
January 13, 1938 ; received, 3 : 15 p. m." ; the letters " E. D. A." "This 
telegram must be closely paraphrased before being conmiunicated to 
anyone," and then in parentheses "(D), Secretary of State, Wash- 
ington 63, January 13, 6 p. m., section 1, strictly confidential, for the 

I shall now ask Mr. Welles if he will read this document carefully 
and tell the committee whether or not the national security would 
be violated in his opinion, by the reading of this document into the 
public record. 

Mr. Welles. Mr. Chairman, after reading this message, it is my 
conviction that without regard to the interests of any individual, or 
any other interest, the publication at this time of this message would 
be prejudicial to the Nation's interests. 

Mr. Rankin. Is that one of the documents that was just identified 
a while ago by Mr. Wheeler ^ 

Mr. Stripling. It is, sir. 

Mr. Mltndt. Thank you, Mr. Welles. It is not going to be the 
purpose of the conmiittee, I might say, to press you for your reasons, 
because quite understandably your reasons might be just as prejudicial 
to the interests of the Nation as the document itself. 

Mr, Welles. That might be the difficult}'. 

Mr. Stripling. Mr. Welles, I would like to ask you if in l^^S a docu- 
ment was marked "Strictly confidential, for the Secretary," whether 
or not it would be classified as a "top secret" document? 

Mr. Welles, Decidely so, Mr, Stripling, 

Mr, Stripling, I show the witness a document dated January 14, 
1938, Paris, received 3 : 35 p, m.^, which also contains a stamp in the 
right-hand corner, "Assistant Secretary of State, January 14, 1938, 
Mr. Sayre." It contains the number 5 in the corner, Mr. Chairman. 
However, from examining the continuity of these documents, I believe 
that it should be 55, or that only one-half of the 5 shows. It states, 
"E. D. A. This telegram must be closely paraphrased before being 
comnuniicated to anyone," and then in parentheses "(D), Secretary 
of State, Washington 63, January 13 16, 6 p. m., section 2." 

I ask you, Mr. Welles, if you will read this document and tell the 
committee whether in your opinion the national security will be 
violated in any way by its publication. 


Air. Welles. Mr. Cliairnuiiu this, of course, is the second section 
of the same cahlc. of which the first section has already been passed 
up to tlie conunittee. Except for tlie fact that it is the second section 
of a cable of which the first section, in my jud<j:nient should not be 
l)ublishe(l, the second section, taken by itself, contains nothin<r, in my 
opinion, which would be detrimenlal to the national interests, were 
it t<i be pul)lished. 

Mr. MuNi>T. Thank you. 

Mr. Stiuplino. Mi-. Chairman, the connnittee has issued a subpena 
on Mr. R()i)ert Cleveland, who is the attorney for Whittaker Chambei-s, 
calling for him to produce ceitain recoids wiiich were submitted at a 
pretrial examination in Baltimore during tiie month of November. 
During this pretrial examination, Mr. Whittaker Chambers, while 
giving a deposition, submitted a numb^'r of do( umenis which he alleges 
under oath were given to him by a person employed in the State De- 

One of these documents, which has been turned over to the committee 
in response to the subpena served on Mr. Cleveland, is dated February 
15, li);58, 4 p. m. It says: "Telegram sent Andegation, Vienna." 

I will ask you, Mr. Welles, to examine this document and tell the 
connnittee whether the public interest would be violated, or the na- 
tional interest and security would be violated by the publication of 
that document. 

Mr. Welles. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this document also if 
published now would be prejudicial to the Nation's interests. 

Mr. MuxuT. Thank you. 

Mr. Stkiplinc;. ^Ir. Welles, were any of these messages which I have 
shown you, would they be sent in code? Is there anything to indicate 
that they were sent in code originally i 

Mr. Wei^les. All of these messages, Mr. Stri])ling. oiiginally wei-e 
sent in code and undoubtedly those marked "strictly contidential'' or 
"strictly confidential, for the Secretary," would piesumably be sent 
in one of the most secret codes then in our possession. 

Mr. Stuii'linc;. Would the ])ossession of the document as 1 i-an>late(l, 
along with the original document as it api)eared in code, furnish an 
individual with the necessary infornuition to break the code? 

Mr. Weijlics. In my judgment, decidedly yes. 

Mr. MiixnT. Mr. Stripling, it would occur to me that inasnnich as 
these documents are cjuite apparently of such significance that the con- 
tents cannot be disclosed at a public hearing of this nature without 
certainly examining each one in detail, that we should not take the 
time to do that at this hearing today; that Mr. Welles has served his 
purpose as a witness at a public hearing, and at an executive session 
we could go into this matter in further detail, for the purpose of help- 
ing to sort out the evidence to make sure that nothing of vital danger 
to our national secuiify is made public. X^idess you want to take up 
these documents with him separately, this would serve to show the 
connnittee that we obviously cannot make this nuiterial public at this 

M •. SriiiPi.Txr,. The next document I would like to show the witness, 
Mr. C hairman, is a niemorancUun which is IG pages long. If you would 
like for Mr. Welles to examine it in executive session, that is up to 
the committee. 


Mr. MuNDT. I think you might as well do it in executive session. 
That is a pretty lon<r document to read, and we have before us, at least 
the definite conviction of Mr. Welles that the material secured in these 
microfilms is of such a nature that if published it would prove highly 
prejudicial to the security interests of the Nation, and I see no reason 
why he should read each document at this time for that purpose. I 
think Mr. Welles can remain with us for a while in executive session 
afterward, and we can pursue that at that time. 

Mr. Stripling. ]Mr. Welles, while you are on the stand, I would like 
to ask if you recall the position of Mr. Francis B. Sayre in the Depart- 
ment of State during the period 1938? 

Mr. Welles. He was Assistant Secretary of State at that time, 
Mr. Stripling. 

Mr. Stripling. I have here the register of the Department of State 
for 1938, and it says : 

Charged with economic, financial, tariff, and general trade questions of such 
other duties as may be assijiiied to him by the Secretary of State; Francis B. 
Sayre, Assistant Secretary of State ; Alger Hiss, assistant to the Assistant Secre- 
tary ; Euni<e A. Lincoln, private secretary ; Anna Belle Newcomb, clerk ; Robert 
T. Greenfield, messenger. 

Do you know when Mr. Sayre left the Department of State? 

Mr. Welles. I am afraid I cannot remember the exact date. That 
of course is a matter of record. 

Mr. Stripling. Mr. Chairman, in having ISIr. Welles examine these 
documents in executive session, I should like very much, if possible, for 
him to tell the committee the various departments of the State Depart- 
ment that they emanated from, or the proper channels that they would 
ordinarily flow through. 

Mr. MuNDT. I am sure Mr. Welles would be willing to cooperate. 

]\Ir. Welles. In every possible way, Mr. Chairman. ISIay 1 make 
one concluding remark at this stage ? 

Mr. MuNDT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Welles. I feel, of course, as you indicated in your statement 
a few minutes ago, Mr. Chairman, that in determining what is preju- 
dicial at this moment to the Nation's security by the publication of 
documents of this character, the responsibility should clearly be borne 
by the present high ofHcials of the Department of State. For many 
years, 5 years, I have been unfamiliar with the official inner workings 
of the conduct of our foreign relations, and there may be certain rea- 
sons which in the Department the present judgment would render 
the publication of documents, which to me would seem safe, undesir- 
able, or vice versa. I merely want to make that as a reservation to 
the opinion I have offered. 

Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman; I understand that Mr. Peurifoy, 
Assistant Secretary of State, is present, and I wonder if it would be 
in order to submit some of these statements to him and get his reaction 
before we go into executive session. 

Mr. MuNDT. He is the next witness. 

Mr. Hebert. May I ask some questions? 

Mr. Mundt. Mr. Hebert. 

Mr. Hebert. Mr. Welles, I understand your position as enunciated 
at the moment. May I ask you this : Were you the Under Secretary 
of State at the time these documents were received in the State 
Department ? 

Mr. AVelles. That is correct, sir. 


]\ri'. Hebert. And at tliat time, would thoii" release to the public, or 
their release to unauthorized hands be prejudicial to the best interests 
of t lie Nation? 

Mr. Welles. In the hifjhest degree prejudicial, and in the highest 
degree dangerous to the Nation's interests. 

JNIr. Hebeht. Aiul you, as Under Secretary of State at that time, 
had you known that there was a leak in the Department, you wouUl 
immediately have brought the proper action to bring the guilty parties 
to their i)roper disposition? 

Mv. Welles. Decidedly so. 

Mr. SxiaPLiNG. Mr. Welles, while you were Under Secretary of 
State, was it ever necessary that you were called to dismiss or discipline 
anyone in the Department of State for violating the resti-ictions of the 

Mr. AVelles. It is my understanding that at the time I was Under 
Secretary certain actions taken by the Assistant Secretary then in 
charge of administration, with regard to improving the secui-ity of the 
code rooms and the cotle employees in the Department of State — I am 
afraid I cannot remember, Mr. Stripling, since it did not come directly 
within my jurisdiction, exactly what action was taken. To the best 
of my recollection certain employees were dismissed and otheis trans- 

Mr. Stripling. Some were dismissed and others transferred? 

Mv. Welles. Yes, sir. 

Mr. S'lTtiPLiNG. Those are all the questions I have. 

Mr. MuNDT. Mv. McDowell, do you have a question? 

Mr. McDowELi.. No questions. 

Mv. M'uNDT. Mr. Nixon? 

Mr. Nixox. Mr. Welles, in the case of a "strictly confidential for the 
Secretary" type of document, as I understand one of these documents 
was, at the time you were in the Department of State would such a 
document be kept in wdiat you might term a certain type of file for safe- 
keeping, and only one or more copies nuide? I woiuUm' if you coidd 
enlighten us on that point. 

Mv. Welles. The distribution would have been extremely restricted, 
and as soon as the documents had been distributed to certain officials 
and read by those officials, they were supposed to be collected and 
taken to a section of the archives in the Department of State that was 
reserved for "strictly confidential"' information. 

The exact distribution of documents of that highly confidential 
character was determined by the then Seci'etaiT of State, and the 
ordei'S were issued fiom his office to the code rooms as to the distri- 
bution to be made. 

Mr. Xixox. Certainly such a document could not, with any authori- 
zation, be removed from the Depaitment for the pui'j)()se of placing it 
on microfilm? 

Mr. Welles. Undei- no consideration whatever, and no documents 
even of a nonconfidential characlei", undei- the icgulat ions' then ob- 
taining in the Depaitment. could evt'i- be icmoved foi' any i)Ui"pose 
from the Department. 

Mv. Nlxox. It is r.iy understanding following the question Mr. 
Hebert asked, that you have indicated not only wei'e the two docu- 
ments y(ju have examined — not only would it have been prejudicial 
to the national interest to have released them then to an unauthorized 


person, but now, 10 years later, it would still be prejudicial to the 
national interest to release those documents? 

Mr. Welles. In my judgment that is entirely correct, sir. 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Vail, any questions? 

Mr. Vail. Was the accessibility of these documents limited, Mr. 
Welles, to certain people? 

Mr. Welles. As I said before, sir, they were distributed in very 
restricted form by order from the office of the Secretary of State. 
The official to whom they were supposed to go was held responsible 
for maintaining their confidential nature, and in general terms I 
can say that documents of the kind I have seen would have been ex- 
tremely limited in their distribution and should have been regarded 
as in the highest degree confidential, and to be kept under lock and 
key until they were turned over to the proper custody of the Archives 

Mr. Vail. But then the people to whom these documents were avail- 
able would be identified at this time? 

Mr. Welles. It would seem so to me. 

Mr. Vail. That is all. 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Welles, who could establish the identity of the 
people to whom these documents would have been made available? 

Mr. Welles. I believe that Mr. Peurifoy will probably be able 
to tell you more about that than I, Mr. Chairman. I assume the re- 
cords have been kept as to the distribution that was authorized at that 

Mr. MuNDT. Thank you, very much. We appreciate your coopera- 
tion and if you w^ill stand by, we w^ill have an executive session after 
this hearing. 

Mr. Welles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MuNDT. The Chair would like to call Mr. John Peurifoy, the 
Assistant Secretary of State. 

Mr. Peurifoy, do you solemnly swear the testimony you are a;bout to 
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God ? 

Mr. Peurifoy. I do, sir. 


Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Peurifoy, I believe your title is Assistant Secre- 
tary of State in charge of security, at least that describes the purview 
of your authority ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Peurifoy. In charge of administration, sir, which includes 

Mr. MuNDT. And you have held that position since what time? 

Mr. Peurifoy. I was appointed on an acting basis January 21, 1947, 
confirmed by the Senate March 15, 1947. 

Mr. MuNDT. You have been in the room, have you not, and have 
heard all of the testimony given by Mr. Sumner Welles? 

Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MuNDT. And you heard my preliminary statement prior to 
calling him to the stand ? 

Mr. Peurifoy. Y"es, sir. 

Mr. MuNDT. So that it is unnecessary to repeat the attitude of the 
conmiittee which is to make available to the public portions of these 

80408— 4S 2 


docunioiits if tlioy are not piejudicial to the national security, or to 
the lii^r'i diplomatic i)iirposes ol" tiie Government, but to take every 
conceivable step to safe<2:uard tiie national security, even at this late 
hour, by not i)ublishinjr documents which Mr. Welles or which the 
State Department feels would j)eril the national security. 

Mr. PiXKiFuY. 1 have not seen the documents. 

Mr. MuNDT. No; but you understand our objective view? 

Mr. Striplin<i: will now show you the docmnents which he showed to 
Mr. "\\'elles and ask you some (questions concerning them. 

Mr. 1*ki:kif()V. Yes, sir. 

Air. Stripling. Mr. Chairman, I will show him the same three 
documents, ask that he read Ihem all three carefully, and then we will 
take them up in the order in which Mr. AVelles considered them. 

Proceed in<2; in order, Mr. Chairman, the iirst document which the 
witness has examined is the document dated January 13, 11)38, marked 
"Sd'ictlv Confidential for the Secretary," section 1, and si<;nc(l 

Do you consider. Mi'. Pi'urifoy, that the publication in tiie record of 
this document would jeopardize the national security in any way^ 

Mr. Pkurifoy. I do, sir. for the same reason that Mr. Welles out- 
lined. Section 2 of that telegram taken by itself I think would be 
all right, but because of the information in the first section I think 
that would not be in the national interest. 

Mr. MuxDT. Thank you. l*roceed, Mr. Stripling. 

Mr. SiiuPLiNG. The third document is dated Februaiy 15, 1938. It 
has previously been identified and is signed ''Hull." 1 will ask you 
your opinion of that document. 

Mr. AliTNDT. The Cliair would like to ask the ])hotogi-a])liors to be 
careful not to photogra})h the text of any of these documents. 

Mr. Peurifoy. I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that the third docu- 
ment should be made available to the public in the national interest. 

Mr. MuNDT. You do not believe it should be? 

Mr. PuFRiFOY. No, sir. 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Stripling, have you shown Mr. Puerifoy all three 
of the documents? 

iSIr. Strifmno. Yes. sir. 

Mr, MuNDT. The Chair would like to ask Mr. Puerifoy, having 
heard the testimony of Mr. Welles, if you think ]ierhaj)s you could 
help the connnittee identify the names of the ))eople in the State 
Dei)artment to whom these documents would have been avaihible back 
in 1938, whether you can supply us with tiiat infoiination. 

Mr. Peurifoy. I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, that those distribu- 
tion lists would be still in the Department. That is something I would 
have to check. On the original there jirobably is pi-inted a distrilm- 
tion of where these documents went. I am not sure whetlier this is 
a copy or whether it is the actual original copy. That would show the 
actual distribution and I think it would be the best source to check 
that from. AVe could, however, go into it. 

Mr. MuNDT. In your position in the State Department you could 
check and determine whether such a list was available; could you 

Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir. 


Mr. MuNDT. Would you be willing to do that, and if you find it, 
would you give us the names of the people who did receive such 
documents ? 

Mr. PuERiFOY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MuNDT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rankin, have you any questions ? 

Mr. Raniun. I have a question of Mr. Stripling. 

I Avanted to ask Mr. Stripling how many more of these documents 
he has. 

Mr. Stripling. I haven't counted them, Mr. Rankin. I would say 
there would probably be — well, all of these documents did not come 
from the State Department, Mr. Rankin. 

Mr. Rankin. 1 know, but how many of these secret documents 
have you? 

Mr. Stripling. Mr. Wheeler says there are approximately 200 pages, 
which have been developed. 

:Mr. ]\IuNDT. Mr. Hebert. 

Mr. Hebert. Mr. Peurifoy, in your position in charge of security 
for the State Department, would you say that documents in the 
number of 200 pages removed from the Department would prima facie 
indicate that they had been taken for a purpose detrimental to the 
United States Government? 

Mr. Peurifoy. I would so. 

Mr. Hebert. And anybody taking them could not be perchance, or 
by accident ; it would have to be some systematic removal of these docu- 
ments from the files for a purpose not in the interests of the United 
States Government ? 

Mr. Peurifoy. I would agree with that, sir. 

Mr. Rankin. Mr. Peurifoy, could you imagine anybody taking those 
records from the State Department who didn't do it with some ulterior 
and unpatriotic motive ? 

Mr. Peurifoy. Well, actually, sir, under the regulations, the security 
regulations of the Department of State, no one is supposed to take 
documents like that out, even for their own use at home at night to 
study. They are supposed to remain in the Department. 

Mr. Nixon. May I follow that, Mr. Peurifoy ? 

Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Nixon. I understand that where a document is classified, at 
least where it is classified to the extent of "Strictly Confidential" or 
"Strictly Confidential for the Secretary," that the document is not 
supposed to be removed from the Department to the person's home? 

Mr. Peurifoy. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Nixon. And if a documeijt of such a nature were removed to a 
person's home, and there copied or there digested by that person, that 
in itself would be a breach of the State Department's rules? 

Mr. Peurifoy. It would, sir. 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. McDowell. 

Mr. McDow^ELL. No ; no further questions. 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Vail ? 

Mr. Vail. No questions. 

Mr. Hebert. May I ask another ? 

Mr. Mundt. Mr. Hebert. 

Mr. Hebert. Mr. Peurifoy, these documents were originally highly 
restricted and even to this date their publication would be against the 


iintioiial security. Does it thei-efore follow that anvbodv haviusr as 
of this date those (lociiineiits in their possession has them in their pos- 
session ill('<rally and in violation of the law? 

Mr, Peurifoy. Yes, sir. 

All". Hkkkrt. You are not referrinir to the cominiKee. T ]iresuine. 
V>'e have them legally. But any individual having those doeuinents, 
even as of this date — in other words — let me make myself elear in lan- 
guage we can all possibly understand. 

Tf T took one of those documents, as a member of the committee, 
and gave it to Joe Blow outside on the street, Joe Blow would then be 
subject to prosecution for having in his possession a document illegally, 
is that correct? 

'Mv. Pkitkifoy. That is clear to me. sir. T am not a lawyer. 

Mr. Hkcekt. I am not a lawyer, either; that is why 1 have to talk in 
layman's language. 

Ml-. Rankix. I am a lawyer. If he illegally took them from the 
recoi'ds he would violate tlie law by accepting tliem. 

Mr. pKiHiFov. Well, I don't know whether Joe Blow woidd know 
this was an illegal docmnent he was getting. 

IVfi-. Hebert. Of course. T am assiuning he would know it. Tn other 
Avoids. T am trying to establish now for obvious reasons the fact that 
if anybody had in theii' j)ossessi()n these documents illegally, and 
knowingly having them in their possession illegally, is guilty, so that 
the law of proscription would I'un against them. 

IVfr. PErRTFov. That Avould be my undei-standing. 

IVfr. Rankin. Let me ask you another (|uestion. Suppose someone 
in the State Department should copy some of these documents, wouldn't 
that be a violation of the law? 

Mr. Pei^rifov. And dispose of tluMU outside the De]iartment? 

Mr. Rankin. Yes. 

Mr. PEiTtiFOY. Yes, sir. 

]\rr. Rankin. Then would it he a violation of the law for him to 
co])y it at any rate for his own ]iersonal use? 

Air. l^EiRiFOY. Well, he might make a paiaphrase. dictate it to a 
stenographer, in order to pass it to another official in the Dejiartment, 
but if you mean taking a pencil and wiiting it out. 1 would say that 
would be a A-ery unusual pi'ocedure. 

Mr. Raxkin. You are certainly of the o]>inion that if he copied 
them for the purpose of distribution he A'iolated the law? 

Mr. Pefrifoy. Unless it Avere authorized by higher ]ieople; yes, 

Mr. STRiriJXG. Mr. Chairman, since this point has come up. I would 
like foi- Mr. Peurifoy to read three other documents T have here, as 
I Avould like to <ret the status of the documents whiih were turned 
ovei' by Mr. Chambers at the pretrial deposition. 

Mr. Afi'NDT. Very Avell,you Avill identify the documents — give them 
to Afr. Peurifoy. 

My. Strii'linc. T am going to ask that he read this Avithoiit i<lenti- 
fication. AFi-. Chairman, because this matter for the moment is highly 

Mr. Mundt. Alark it with some exhibit number, then, so that Ave 
can identify it in the record. 

Mr. Stripling. Yes, sir. 


These are three handwritten menioranda. We are aware of who 
wrote the menioranda from the handwriting. But I would like to 
determine whether or not it would be improper or unlawful to remove 
this type of memoranda from the State Department, which contains 
highl}^ confidential State Department documents. 

Mr. Nixon. Mr. Stripling, so the question will be clear, your question 
is whether or not it would have been unlawful to remove that type of 
memoranda in 1938 at the time the memoranda were written? 

Mr. Stkiplixg. That is right. 

Mr. Nixon. It is not the question we had previously asked as to 
whether or not the disclosure of that information today would be 
prejudicial to the national interests? 

IMr. Peurifoy. That is correct. 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Puerifoy, you have examined the documents. The 
committee would like to have your opinion of them. 

ISIr. Plterifoy. IVIr. Chairman, I would regard anyone making notes 
of what I have seen here, in personal handwriting, and taking them out 
of the Department of State, as violating certainly all the security regu- 
lations of the Department. 

Mr. MuNDT. Would you also consider the publication of that material 
now prejudicial t6 the public interest, in the event they put a photo- 
static copy of it in the record, together with the identity of the man 
who wrote that memorandum? 

]\Ir. Puerifoy. I would rather not answer that quite as categorically 
as I did the first telegi'ams. I would rather say this : That this might 
prove embarrassing to us in our relations with another nation. I do 
not think it would prejudice our national interests, if you get the dis- 

Mr. MuNDT, It is not whether it proves embarrassing; it is the na- 
tional security that is involved. 

INIr. Peurifoy. I don't think it would injure our national security, 
in other words, if this document were published. 

Mr. MuxDT. Wliereas it might interfere with our diplomatic nego- 

Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Nixox. Your point is, then, that the release of these documents 
in your opinion would, to use a term that doesn't go as far, would 
possibly injure the United States? It could possibly, due to the fact 
that it would place us in a poorer bargaining position with another 
nation ? 

Mr. Peurifoy. x\t this particular state of affairs in the world; yes, 

Mr. Nixox. If you, as a State De})artment official, were to make the 
decision as to whether or not the information contained in these docu- 
ments just shown to you should be made public or not, your decision 
would 1)6 tliat it should not be made public ? 

Mr. Peurifoy. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Nixox. If you had the decision to make ? 

Mr. Peurifoy. That is correct, sir. 

INIr. ISIuxDT. Mr. Hebert. 

Mr. Hebert. Mr. Peurifoy, the documents you have just read and 
the photostatic copy of handwriting that you saw, would you say, in 
your judgment, that the individual who did make that memorandum 


ill his own handwi-itincr would be doin<r so for some purpose other 
tliMii liis ofllciiil activity as a nienib(>r of tlie Dopartiiiont of State? 
Would there he any reason for an indivi(hial to make a memorandum 
such as you just looked at, in his own handwriting? 

Mr. pKiiMKov. Xo, sir; not in mv judgment. 

Ml-. IIkbkut. There wouldn't bet 

Mr. Pki lUFOY. No, sir. 

Mr. IIkhkkt. Then if an individual did, in your judgment, make 
such memorandum and in iiis own handwriting, you would have to 
assume he did it for some ulterior motive? 

Mr. Ppn-HiFOY. I thiidv tliat is right, sir. 

3rr. Nixox. ;Mr. Peurifoy, there is a point that I am interested in 
from a legal standpoint as regards the committee. I might say that 
ah)ng with Mr. Stripling, the chief investigator, we had a conversa- 
tion with two representatives from the State Department a few days 
ago, in regard to the security problem involved in these documents. 
It was my understanding — and I cannot recall exactly the words of 
the conversation— but it was my understanding that there is a law 
at the present time which makes it illegal to ])lace in a record, or to 
have in your possession, any document involving a confidential code. 

Now, I do not know if that question is sufficiently clear for you to 
understand what T mean. 

Mr. Peirifoy. Yes, sir; I know. 

Mr. Nixon. Would you enlighten the committee on that point? 

Mr. PF:iTRir()Y. I think vou are referring to what is known as the 
Yardly Act. 

Mr. Nixon. That is correct. 

Mr. Pkurifoy. Which ])rohibits the transcribing of diplomatic 
notes into, say, the form of a letter, a note to a personal friend, or to 
coj)y it down and take it out of the Department. A person would be 
liable to a $10.()()0 hue, and I think up to 10 years' imprisonment for 
doing such a thing. 

Mr. Nixox. Now, to pursue that a step further, if a diplomatic 
note, as you term it, were transcribed into the records of a coiinnittee 
of Congress, would the people involved and the committee of Congress 
be technicallv guiltv for violation of the law? 

Mr. Peirifoy. I am sorry. Mr. Nixon. 1 could not answer that ques- 
tion, because I do not know what the relations would be vis-a-vis the 
committee of Congress. 

Mr. NixoN. Thank you. 

Mr. ^^l■XI)T. Mr. Peurifoy, you were here when T suggested to Afr. 
Welles that in view of the highly secret and signilicant sti-alegic nature 
of these documents we were not going to ask you to examine them all, 
but we would like to have you join Mr. AVelles and the committee im- 
mediatelv iifter the hearing of these ])ublic hearings in executive session 
downstairs to consider these documents at greater length, ^du will 
be available for that ? 

Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, Afr. Chairman. 

Mr. AfuxoT. T would like to express the a]i)>reciation of the commit- 
tee to you, sir, in youi' cooperative attitude in bringing to the chair- 
man, if possible, the identity of the people who had access to these 
particular documents, because that would be very hel|)ftd tn tlie 


I might say we have been in contact with the FBI, and the com- 
mittee is going to make available to the P'BI a photostatic copy of ail 
the documentary evidence that we have. The FBI has agreed to 
cooperate fully for the purpose of helping to reproduce, with its im- 
proved techniques and devices, some of these illegible documents that 
we now have, and we have agreed, sir, to provide you, as the security 
officer of the State Department, also a photostatic copy of all these 
documents in our possession. 

Mr. Peurifoy. I appreciate that very much, Mr. Chairman. We 
would like very much to have copies of all these documents, if we may. 

Mr. MuNDT. We appreciate your cooperative attitude. The thing 
we are trying to do is to determine who took them out. 

Mr. Rankin. There can be no question about those documents being 
copied from the records of the State Department, can there? There 
is no question but they are copies of State Department records? 

Mr. Peurifoy. The documents I have seen, Mr. Rankin, I would say 
''Yes" ; there is no question about it, the documents I have seen. I don't 
know about the others. 

Mr. MuNDT. Thank you very much, Mr. Peurifoy, and I might say 
before we break up, it is a sad commentary, but it certainly stands 
axiomatically before us all when we find in the possession of Russian 
agents in this country material so secretive and so vital to our national 
defense that we cannot make it available to the American public. 

That seems to be the situation we are now confronted with. 

The meeting stands adjourned. 

(Whereupon, at 4 p. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene in 
executive session.) 


wednesday, december 8, 1948 

United States House of Representatives, 

Special Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington, D. C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 8 p. m., in the caucus 
room. Old House Office Building, Hon. Karl E. Mundt (acting chair- 
man) presiding. 

Committee members present: Representatives Karl E. Mundt (act- 
ing chairman), John McDowell, Richard M. Nixon, Richard B. Vail, 
John E. Rankin, and F. Edward Hebert. 

Staff members present: Robert E. Stripling, chief investigator; 
Louis J. Russell and William A. Wheeler, investigators; Benjamin 
Mandel, director of research ; and A. S. Poore, editor. 

Mr. Mundt. The subcommittee will come to order, please, with the 
record showing as present the chairman. Mr. McDowell, Mr. Nixon, 
Mr. Vail, Mr. Rankin, and Mr. Hebert. 

Mr. Stripling, will you please call the witness for this evening? 

Mr. Stripling. Mr. Isaac Don Levine. 

Mr. Mundt. Mr. Levine, will you raise your right hand and be 
sworn ? 

You promise to swear the testimony you are about to give is the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Levine. I do. 

Mr. Mundt. Thank you. Will you be seated ? 


Mr. Stripling. Mr. Levine, will you please state your full name 
and present address? 

Mr. Levine. Isaac Don Levine, Norwalk, Conn. 

Mr. Stripling. Where were you born ? 

Mr. Levine. Russia. 

Mr. Stripling. When? 

Mr. Levine. February 1, 1892. 

Mr. Stripling. What place in Russia ? 

Mr. Levine. A town by the name of Mozir, 

Mr. Stripling. When did you come to the United States ? 

Mr. Levine. October 1911. 

Mr. Stripling. When did you l)ecome a citizen of the United States? 

Mr. Levine. In the spring of 1918. 

Mr. Stripling. What is your occupation ? 



Mr. Levixe. Writer and editor. 

Mr. Stripling. Would you give the connnittee a brief resume of 
your j)rofessional background? 

Mr. Levixe. I staited as a free-lance writer for the Kansas City 
Star, 1914; was foreign-news editor of the New York Tribune, 11)17; 
wrote my first book on the lliissian revolution, published by Harper's 
and published abroad, in 1J)17; went to Russia as a correspondent for 
the Chicago Daily News and the New York Globe early in 191J); con- 
tinued for several years partly as a correspondent for the Hearst news- 
papers; took a trip all over Russia in U)2l\, the first unoflicial senatorial 
conunission of inquiry, headed by Senator King and the late Senator 
Ladd. When I retui-ned to the United States, I took uj) literary work; 
headed a book clul) called the Book League of America; continued to 
M'rite books and collaborate on books dealing with the history of the 
Russian revolution. 

This brought me in touch with a number of forniei- Soviet emjiloyees, 
agents, and adherents like the former (ieneral Krivitsky; Jan Valtin, 
whose Out of the Night I had edited; more recently Kravchenko, 
whose first articles I collaborated on, and a number of others perhaps 
too long to enumerate. 

Since then — that is, since October 194C — I have been editing an 
anti-Communist and anti-Fascist political review of strong liberal, 
true liberal tendencies, named Plain Talk. 

Mr. STKirLiXG. Mr. Levine. for several montlis the Committee on 
Un-American Activities has luid under investigation tlie oi)erations of 
the so-called Comnmnist apparatus within the Government, from the 
period of 1934 through the early part of 1938. During this investi- 
gation we had before us an individual by the name of "\^^littaker 
Chamljers. Do you know Whit taker Chambers? 

Mr. HebI':rt, Air. Chairman. 

Mr. Mt xiyr. Mr. Hobert. 

Afr. Hep.ekt. Before Mr. Levine begins liis testimony tonight, T un- 
derstand, Mr. Levine, you I'equested to appear here in ))ublic liearing 
in order to give in ])ublic hearing the testimony which you gave in 
executive session previously; is that correct? 

Mr. Levixe. No, sir. I wanted to a])])ear in order to am[)lify the 
testimony which I gave briefly in executive session. 

Mr. Hebekt. In other words, I understand your a])])earance here to- 
night is for the purpose of amplifying what previously is in the 
record ? 

Mr. Levixe. Yes, sir; and to add facts. 

Mr. Heuekt. New facts which would be of interest to the com- 
li lit tee? 

Mr. Levixe. And to the coiuitry ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Hebekt. May I ask, before you begin to testify, do you intend 
to name any new names tonight that have not heretofore been pro- 
jected into these hearinirs? 

Mr. Stuii'lino. Mr. Hebeit, may I interrupt? 

Have you read the i)roceedings before this committee on the partic- 
u1:ii- matter undei- investigation? 

Mr. Levixe. Yes, sir: I have read the hearings, indeed. T have ivad 
the ])roceedings. I am familiar with the contents of the ixnord. 

Air. Strh'mxg. I am sure what you have in mind, Mr. Ilebert, is 
that names beyond those which are not already in the public record. 


Mr. MuNDT. May the Chair suggest, then, if you have read the 
hearings and know the names that have already been mentioned, that 
should in the course of your remarks you feel inclined to mention 
a name which has not previously appeared in the record, that before 
mentioning any such name you write it on a piece of paper and give 
it to the investigator, so he can submit it to the committee. 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MuNDT. Because we are desirous not to bring into the picture 
any new names without first having an ox)j)ortunity to study the 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hebert. And in furtherance of that, Mr. Chairman, I would 
like to say this : I would like to know in which connection Mr. Levine 
intends to bring any new names in. The fact that he writes them on 
a piece of paper is not satisfactory to me. I want to know how he can 
connect those names up, and if he intends to bring any new names in, 
as I expressed myself before, I will immediately move for an executive 

Mr. MuNDT. It is understood he is not going to bring any new names 
in until he writes them out. 

Mr. Hebert. I know, not only bring any new names in, but associate 
unnamed individuals with the situation which he is about to describe. 

Mr. Levine. That is right. 

Mr. Hebert. That is understood? 

Mr. Levine. That is perfectly understood. 

Mr. Hebert. With that understanding, I have no objection to the 
public hearing. 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Stripling. Mr. Hebert, the reason that we would like to get the 
testimony of Mr. Levine is that according to our investigation he was 
possibly the first — the first that we know of — the first person that 
Whittaker Chambers went to after he broke away from the Com- 
munist Party and the Communist apparatus. I think he is in posses- 
sion of vital facts and information which should be in the record of 
these proceedings. 

Mr. Hp:bert. 1 have no objection there, Mr. Stripling, to mentioning 
or elaborating on what we already know, but specifically I have in 
mind right now these two names which Mr. Whittaker Chambers 
named as individuals who handed him Department of State secrets, or 
other confidential data. I object to those two names being projected 
into a public hearing, until those individuals have been brought before 
the committee in a private hearing and we hear them. 

Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Rankin. 

Mr. Rankin. I want to say in this connection that this is one of the 
most vital questions that has come before the Congress in the last 
quarter of a century. LTndoubtedly there are other people involved, 
and it is the duty of this committee to find out who those people are, 
and to bring them to justice. So far as I am concerned, I am not: 
willing to put any witness in a strait-jacket and try to tell him what to 

If this witness knows of any other individuals who engaged in this 
treasonable conspiracy to steal these records from the State Depart- 


nient and tiii'ii them over to a foreijifii ])()wer, ho oiiirht to tt-U us who 
those |)e<»j)le are ami I shall not join in any attempt to i)revent him 
from namin<r tliem. 

Mr. Hkbkkt. Mi-. Rankin, may I say this: I don't want to ])ut the 
witness in a sti-ait-jacket. You understand, as well as anyl)ody else, 
how 1 feel ahout the matter. I am merely ti\viu<2; to possii)ly protect 
individuals who are not ai)le to protect themselves, and 1 want to ^et 
to the facts as much as you. hut I do not lend myself to hriiiirinii' names 
lip in puhlic hefore the individiuil knows anythin<i- ahout it or hefore 
we know anythin<i- ahout it. 

]Mr. Raxkin. Well, the welfare of this conulry and the safety of 
this country means more than the exposui'e of the name of auv indi- 
vidual who eni2:a<res in activities of this kind. 

Mr. MiNDT. I think the witness has understood the instructions of 
the Chair. 

Mr. Hki'.eht. Do T understand the witness is jjoin<i to follow the 
instructions i 

Mr. MrxDT. Yes; he has said so. 

Mr. Raxkix. Mr. Chaiiiuan. we usually follow the rules of pro- 
cedure here of the House of Kei)iesental i\es, and the I'ules of evidence 
followed hy tiie courts. So. whenever the witness attempts to answer 
a question, or a question is asked that a memher objects to, why. then 
he can raise the objection. Otherwise we are supposed to proceed with 
the hearin<r. 

Mr. MrxDT. The witness will proceed. It is dillicult for the Chair 
to undei-stand how Democrats can disagree so much durin<r the year 
and a^ree so much on election day, but it seems t(j he that way. 

Will the witness proceed? 

Mr. Levine. Mr. Chairman, in answerinii; the (|uestioii of .Mr. 
Sti'i|)lin<;. may I be permitted to say a few words of int loduct ion ^ 

Mr. ^frxirr. Surely. 

Mr. Levixe. I have known Mi-. Chambers for nearly 10 years 

Mr. Stkiplixo. Just a minute. Mr. Levine. Is that a statement ? 

Ml-. Levixe. No. it is not a statement, it is just two sentences. 

Mr. Stijii'mxc. Yes: all riirht. 

Mr. MrxDT. Proceed. 

Mr. Levine. I want to express my profound <:ratification that a 
committee of Conjfjress has, after 10 years of hopeless, futile, and 
strenuous efforts to break throucfh this ])articular consi>ira(-y. has at 
last seen fit to brino- it at last l)efore the American people and the 
world at laro:e in its true dimensions. I simply feel that I am fjrate- 
ful as a citizen of the Un'ited States, to this body of the Conjrress, for 
doiuir the wonderful job it has been doinir in this ])arti(ular case. 

Mi-. S'riiii'EiX(;. Now, Mr. Levine. when did you first meet Whit- 
taker Chambers? 

Mr. Levixe. Around the latter ])art of April or the l)eo:inning of 
Mav 1989. 

Mr. Stuiplixo. 1989? 

Mr. Levixe. Yes. sir. 

Mr. S'liuruxo. Would you describe to the committee the circum- 
stances of your meetiu"! this individual? 

Mr. Levixe. He came to me throuo:h a nnitual friend after I had 
collaborated on the articles of General Krivitsky, which were appear- 


ino; serially at that time in the Saturday Evening Post. He came with 
a manuscriiJt Avhich contained a great deal around and about a vast 
espionage apparatus in the United States, but which lacked the kind 
of facts to make it publishable at that time in the state of American 
public opinion then. 

I so advised him. I developed a friendship with him. He was as 
scared as any — I don't want to use the word ""rabbit"' — as any hunted 
animal, and it Avas unbelievable to me that a native American citizen 
should fear his own shadow in the daylight in the streets of New 
York, in the center of the city. 

As a result of the acquaintanceship and the friendship which I 
developed with him, I induced him to meet Krivitsky. 

Mr. Stkiplixi;. Xow, ;it this point, would you describe or identify 
General Krivitsky? He was a witness, Mr. Chairman, before this 
committee, I believe, in 1930. 

Mr. Levin?:. Gen. "Walter Krivitsky, who was found mysteriously 
shot and fatally shot in a AVashington hotel, I believe in the beginning 
of February 1941, had occupied a position of the chief of military 
intelligence or counterespionage for the Soviet Government in western 

jMr. STRirLixo. For what government? 

]\Ir. Levine. The Soviet Government. He had never been in the 
United States, but he knew a good many top Soviet agents who had 
journeyed to the United States on various secret errands. I was 
anxious to have Mr. Chambers meet Krivitsky so as to check on the 
veracity of both of them and so as to accumulate the kind of evidence 
I thought the American people should have. 

Mr. Rankin. Well, now, right at this point 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Rankin. I think it ought to be brought out that General Krivit- 
sky was a refugee from communism in Russia. 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Rankin. The Communist regime in Russia had, you might say, 
a price set on his head. 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir ; exactly. 

Mr. Rankin. And many people think he was murdered in his hotel 
here, and I am one of the men who thinks he was murdered. 

Mr. Levine. I think, sir, it is a very tenable theory. It simply has 
never been proved. 

Mr. MuNDT. I didn't quite understand one statement. I thought 
you said that General Krivitsky had never been to the United States. 

Mr. Levine. Yes. 

Mr. Rankin. Before. 

Mr. Levine. Never been to the United States before. 

Mr. MuNDT. Before when? 

Mr. Levine. Before his arrival here in December 1938. 

Mr. MuNDT. That is what I wanted to find out. He came here 
in 1938 ? 

Mr. Levine. That is right. 

Mr. MuNDT. Thank you. 

Mr. Levine. But he had known over a number of years before of 
various agents who had commuted between secret points in Europe and 
other points in the United States. 

Mr. MuNDT. That would be anti-Soviet or anti-Communist agents? 


Mr. Levine. Soviet agents. He was a man who was on the inside 
of the secret service and iiitelli<;ence headquai'tcrs in Moscow, and his 
information was vast. 

Mr. Raxkix. He nnule one of the best witnesses before the Dies 
Committee on Un-American Activities tliat I liave ever heard, I mean 
in ox])osinir the workinirs of (•oiiiiminisin in Russia. 

Mr. Lkmnk. 1 :ini ac(iuainted with the record; I am sorry 1 wasn't 
present at the hearinp:s. I qnite agree. 

I want to get on. Mr. Stripling, in answer to yonr qnestion. 

Ml'. Stku'Linc. ^fi'. Cliainuaii. I want to get (he continuity liere, if 
I C()ul(L 

Mr. Muxirr. Proceed, Mr. Stripling, and interrogate the witness. 

Mr. STiupnixG. Go ahead, sir. 

Mr. Levixe. The meeting that I arranged between Chambers and 
Krivitsky — and Chambers was very fearful and suspicious that 1 
might l)e leading him into a trap — started some time in the evening. 
I was present for 2 or 3 or 4 hours and as I have repeated before, 
when I awoke in the morning at 7: 30 or 8 o'clock in the moi-ning, the 
light was still on in the front room, and the two men were still talking 
over coffee. 

But durinor {]]q hom-s that I witnessed the convei-sation a mnuber 
of things developed which showed how these two men mutually sup- 
})lemenle(l and com))lemented tlieir particular bits of knowledge. It 
was like fitting a jig-saw puzzle together and it was astonishing. And 
the most astonishing thing that developed that night was the identi- 
fication of the man who is now in the press under the name of Colonel 
liykov. That occurred in my presence. 

Mr. Chambers, I believe, did not know him under that name. He 
simi)ly described a very high top-secret officer of the Soviet secret 
service in this country, under an alias. 

Mr. STKiruNO. And wdiat was the alias? 

Mr. Levtxe. I believe that the alias at that time was Peters, but 
T am sure that two or three other aliases were mentioned and one of 
them immediately led to an exchange of physical identification maiks. 
And I remember it very vividly for the following reasons: 

First, Krivitsky described him as a man with singular, reddish eyes. 
He was small, had red hair, came from Odessa, and described him a;> 
a very dangerous man. 

"When he found out from Chambers that this man was here and that 
Chambers knew him, I think he turned livid several times. There is 
no doubt in my mind from the remarks that Ki-ivitsky made that he 
regarded him as one of Stalin's ace opei-atives. 

Mr. Striplixg. Did he state that he had any personal knowledge oi- 
this man Colonel Bykov operating in any other country of the world 
with the Soviet police? 

Mr. Levixe. I am sure that he stated that Colonel Bykov — that he, 
Kiivitsky, had crossed the ])ath of Colonel Bykov in dozens of different 
places, jVrobably from Italy to Holland, because Krivitsky had oi)er- 
ated, before coming to the United States, in half a dozen westein 
European countries. 

Mr. Striplixg. Go ahead, Mr. Levine. 

Mr. MuxDT. Proceed. 


Mr. Levine. After this first meeting, when Mr. Chambers found 
that his articles could not be published because he was not prepared 
at that time to incorporate in them the material which I thought was 
essential to their marketability, Mr. Chambers and I did not see each 
other very much for some weeks or months until the Stalin-Hitler 
pact bombshell was, shall we say, exploded on August 23d, I believe, or 
24th, 1939. 

By that time I was convinced from numerous conversations with 
Krivitsky that the Soviet Government had our codes; that the Soviet 
Government was getting a torrent of information from numerous 
Government bureaus in the United States; that the Soviet Govern- 
ment had at least one agent in the United States Embassy in Moscow 
who supplied Soviet secret service with information right on the spot. 

And that the Soviet Government spends a fortune in carrying out 
a single assignment of its secret service. 

I asked Mr. Chambers if he would come forward, in view of the 
international situation, the threat of war which we regarded not as 
imminent, but as tantamount to a declaration of war — that is the way 
I, for instance, Krivitsky, and a few of us regarded the Stalin-Hitler 
Pact — and Mr. Chambers felt the same way, reacted instantly and 
said to me, "If you could take me to the President of the United 
States it wouldn't take any time with the evidence in my possession 
to crack this case wide open." 

Mr. Stripling. Can you remember exactly, or approximately, when 
that was? 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. That was within 48 hours of the signing of 
the Stalin-Hitler Pact. The conversation took place in the neighbor- 
hood of the Time offices, the offices of Time, and Mr. Chambers, who 
was still a very fearful man at that time, gave me a memorandum 
with his private telephone number then, which I have retained, on 
this Time office stationery. 

I told him I knew President Roosevelt's private secretary, ]\lclntyre, 
or one of his secretaries, rather. In fact,^ it so happens that I also 
knew the late President Roosevelt, slightly, but not too well, but I 
have had a short conversation with him once. And I undertook to 
proceed to Washington. 

I saw Mr. Mclntyre. I believe I mentioned Chambers' name to 
him. I think the conversation probably lasted 10 or 15 minutes. 
I sketched 

IVIr. Stripling. Pardon me. Where did you see Mr. Mclntyre ? 

Mr. Levine. When or where? 

Mr. Stripling. Where? 

Mr. Levine. In the White House in his office, adjacent to the press 

Mr. Stripling. Did you call him before you came to Washington ; 
did you make an appointment? 

Mr. Levine. I probably did ; I do not recall. It was not necessary 
for a newspaperman to do that. You could drop in, wait a few 
minutes, and talk to the man. He was a very friendly person. 

Mr. Stripling. But did you go to see Mr. Mclntyre for the sole 
purpose of bringing this matter to his attention ? 

Mr. Levine. For the sole purpose, and I came to Washington for 
that sole purpose. 

Mr. Stripling. All right, go ahead. 


Mr. Lkvixe. I sketclied tlie storv in a few inimites. Mr. Mclntyre, 
of course, was acquainted with tlie Krivitsky articles. I tliink we dis- 
cussed it for a couple of minutes, lie asked lue some (pu'stions. You see, 
Krivitsky had foretold the Staliu-IIitler i)act and that jMit me in a 
preferred position with Mr. Mclntyre because I saw him '1 or ;> days 
after the Stalin-TIitlcr i)act, and when the article had lirst been pub- 
lished in Afarch V.V-V.K there were even editoi's on the Saturday EveniuiX 
Post — wliich has a lar^e staff, of, of editors — who doubted that 
particular article. 

That ])aved the way for my conversation with Mi-. McTntyre. "Mr. 
Mclntyre was very sympathetic, vei-y friendly, but he intimated that 
this is not a matter that the President himself should, at such a critical 
time — it was a rather excitinjj and critical time on the eve of the war — 
shall we say, to handle. This was not a matter for the Pn^sident. and 
he sufjofested that — he asked me if I knew Mr. Berle, who at that time 
was Assistant Secretary of State, Adolph A. Perle, Jr., and I said I 
did. He informed me, and that was the first time I heard about that 
fact, that Mr. Berle, amonir other duties, was handlin<i: liaison with our 
intelli<ience bureaus and divisions of the (loveriunent. 

He tele|)honed Mr. Berle. It wasn't necessary, ^fr. Berle later 
testified that he telephoned to him and I went over and saw Mi-. Berle. 

Mr. Berle. of course, had no knowledfje whatsoever of the existence 
of Mr. Chambers, but he had known me over a lon<x period of years 
just on and off, casually, and I think he had confidence in me. I told 
him that this man wanted to see the President, what he had, and he 
will not come to the State Department because if T brouirht him to the 
State De})artment he feared bein^ rec()<riiized and identified, but he 
would come to some private place. Whereupon, Mr. Berle was kind 
enough to arran«re for a dinner at his home at the Woodley House, the 
house which was the propei-ty of former Secretary of War Stimson, 
which Mr. Berle w-as occupying at the time, and there we met the 
night of September 2. 

Mr. Chambers flew in from New York. 

Mr. MuNHT. September 2, 1089? 

IVfr. LE\axE. 10;^9. It is a memorable night, because the fate of the 
■world was hanging in the balance between September 1, after the attack 
on Poland, and September 8, the declaration of war by France and 
Great Britain upon Germany. 

There were four of us at dinner. I am cognizant of the fact that 
Mr. Berle, who was very tired from working 16 and 18 hours a day, 
later stated, or testified that he didn't remember my ]^resence. 

Subsequently he telephoned me and I straightened him out on the 
facts, and he was gracious enough to acknowledge that 1 was cori'ect, 
because I described to him exactly how Mrs. Berle sat. where I sat, 
where Chambers sat. Avhere he sat. the corner of the room — I had 
never been to the house before and have never been there since — the 
corner of the room after dinner where we re|)aired to. the desk where 
he made notes when Chambers spoke. It was a hot night : we went 
out and sat under the big tree as we talked for an houi- or so. 1 re- 
called all that to him. 

Mr. Chambers unfolded a picture which, as you ab-eady know, 
showed a systematic, highly organized api)aratus looting not only the 
State De])artinent. but he was particulaily familiar with the State 
Department, but Government files in many bureaus in Washington. 


When I got back to the Hay- Adams Hotel I made notes. 

Mr. Stripling. Now, how long did your conversations with Mr. 

Mr. Levine. The dinner conversation in the presence of Mrs. Berle 
did not touch upon any of the purposes of the evening, it was light 
talk. Subsequently, I should say 3 hours. 

Mr. Stripling. Three hours ? 

Mr. Levine. At least. 

Mr. Stripling. Now, Mr. Chambers, did he tell his story to Mr. 
Berle, or did you tell it for him ? 

Mr. Levine. No. 

Mr. Stripling. He told it ? 

Mr. Levine. Mr. Chambers told the story ; occasionally I reminded 
him of something that he may have told me that I knew of which 
fitted into a detail. 

Mr. Stripling. How much detail did Mr. Chambers go into with 
Mr. Berle ? For example, did he name the people ? 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

JNIr. Stripling. He gave him the names of people in the Department 
of State, for example ? 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Stripling. Whom he said were looting or taking files and doing 
what with them ? 

Mr. Levine. Transmitting them, photostating them, and transmit- 
ting them to Soviet agents, secret Soviet agents, to be sent to Moscow. 

Mr. Stripling. Did Mr. Berle express any alarm over Mr. Cham- 
bers' story ? 

Mr. Levine. I definitely remember that Mr. Berle was deeply im- 
pressed and very much concerned over it. The purpose, if I may say a 
word here, of that meeting was for Mr. Berle to go to the President. 
That was understood beforehand between Mr. Berle and myself. 

Mr. Stripling. Why was Mr. Chambers so insistent on getting this 
matter before the President ; do you know ? 

Mr. Levine. Yes, I do know. 

Mr. Stripling. Can you tell the committee why ? 

Mr. Levine. Yes. Because Mr. Chambers felt that with w^ar on, 
regardless of the consequences, as a patriotic American, he had to act 
and he could not sit on that information. It was the war that enabled 
me to bring Mr. Chambers to Washington. 

Mr. Rankin. Mr. Levine. 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Rankin. Would you mind submitting to the committee at this 
time the names of the individual^ whom you say Mr. Chambers gave 
to Mr. Berle that night? 

Mr. Levine. Sir 

Mr. Rankin. Who were looting the records of the State Depart- 

Mr. Levine. I would rather not do it. I think it should be done in 
executive session, and if I am permitted, Mr. Chairman, I would like 
to give my reason for it. My information, after all, is second-hand. 
Mr. Chambers' information is first-hand. I came here really to talk 
about something else, about the efforts of an American and a few 
others to break through the conspiracy of silence, and that is what I 
would like the members of this committee to listen to. 

80408— 48— pt. 2—3 


Mr. Stripijxg. Mr. T^'viiie, let me interrupt you. 

Mr. Lkmxk. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SriurLiNG. This coiniiiiltee is ))riiiri|);illy concerned now- 

Mr. Kaxkix. Now, just a moment riirlit tliere. I don't want to let 
that statement p:o unanswered. I am willin<>- to wait and get this 
information in executive session, but what you are sayin<>: is not hear- 
say testimony, because you. according to your statement, hearil Mr. 
Chambers tell the Under Secretary of State that there were indi- 
viduals, ^ivin<r their names, in the State Department, looting; the State 
l)e])artment of documents or records that wci-e of \ilal interest to 
the safely of the Nation. 

Mr. Levixe. Sir, will you permit me to answer the question as fol- 
lows: The names of Al<rer Hiss and Donald Hiss wei-e amoufj those 
wliich T recoi'ded on y)a]ier in ink upon my return to the hotel. 

^Ir. Sriai'Lixci. What hotel were you st()p|)iu<j: at ^ 

Mr. Levine. Hay-Adams House in "Washiuirton. 

Mr. Striplixg. Yon mean after this conference you went to your 
hotel ? 

Mr. Levixe. Yes. 

Mr. Striplixg. Had you niailc notes of that conference? 

Mr. Levixe. Yes, sir; that ni<>ht. 

Mr. ]\*AXKix. You said Al<xer Hiss? 

Mr. Lkvixk. Al<>'ei' Iliss and Donald Hiss. 

Mr. Striplixg. Now, those two names 

Mr. ]Mi'XDT. Before we leave the names, I take it there were other 
names, but those are the two names which have ))revi()usly apjieared 
in pi'int. and that is why you mention two names now? 

^Ir. Levixe. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MiTXDT. The other names you will jrive us in executive session? 

jVTr. Levixe. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Mt'Xot. Very <i(K)(1, 

Mr. Striplix(;. What did Mi\ Berle say at the conclusion of this 
conference? Did he say what action he intended to take, or what 
he intended to do about it? 

Mr. Lkmxe. Mr. Berle left us with the fe(>lino- that lie was <roin«x 
to act in the matter, and that times bein«i Avhat they were, it would 
have to be handled with the utmost delicacy and that we should not 
pry toonnich, nor be too impatient as to the pi-occdure which the pi-opci- 
Govermnent a<j:encies would take. 

Mr. SriMPLTXG. Now, Mr. Levine. T am interested in one particular 
thinL"". In youi' confei'eiu-es aiul couversiit ions with Whittaker (Cham- 
bers, did he ever at any time tell you that he had any documentary 
evidence to substantiate his alle«rations? 

^fi-. I^EVixE. Yes, sii-. 

Mr. Sthipeixc;. AVhen did he tell yoti that? 

Mr. Levixe. Li the couise of the sununer of 19o9. when we discussed 
the marketability of his articles, T asked him if he had any evidence, 
and he told me that theiv was such evidence. He mentioned micro- 
films and he also mentioned in a iicneral way (lociinientai'v evidence, 
without <:oinj:- into detail. 

Mr. SrHii'EiX(;. Well; did he say that that evidence was available? 

Mr. Levixe. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McDoAVEiJi. Difl he show them to you? 

Mr. Levixe. No, no. 


Mr. Stripling. Did you ask him for the evidence ? 

Mr. Levine. I understood when I was going to Washington in an 
effort to bring him to President Eoosevelt, that that is exactly what 
would transpire, that Mr. Chambers would leave certain evidence 
which he wouldn't show to me before the President of the United 
States, and something or another would happen, and the whole matter 
would be clinched right there and then. 

Mr. Stripling. But wdien you took him to see Mr. Berle, did he. 
have with him any documentary evidence ? 

Mr. Levine. No, sir ; he did not. 

Mr. Stripling. Did you ask him about it? 

Mr. Levine. No, sir ; not on that occasion he did not have the same' 
feeling about Mr. Berle that he had about President Roosevelt. If I 
remember correctly, he on several occasions had expressed his utmost 
confidence in the President. 

]Mr. Rankin. Was General Krivitsky with you that night ? 

Mr. Levine. No, sir. Krivitsky did not know of that trip ; and if 
he found out later, that was not through me. 

Mr. Rankin. As I understand it, you were making an effort to get 
a conference between General Krivitsky and President Roosevelt? 

Mr. Levine. No, sir ; no, sir. 

Mr. Rankin. Between Chambers and President Roosevelt? 

Mr. Levine. BetMeen Chambers and the President. Chambers had 
American material, American evidence. Krivitsky had European and 
general material. 

Mr, Stripling. Did he indicate to you where this evidence was? 

Mr. Levine. He indicated, I think subsequently several months later 
when I raised the question, that that evidence was being kept in a 
safe place for trading purposes with the OGPU and Soviet Govern- 
ment in the event he or his wife or his children met with any harm. 
If his children, for instance, were kidnaped, the evidence would be 
produced which could have them released. If he himself were to be 
abducted, the party that had the evidence could then wield a club over 
Stalin's NKVD or OGPU and use that cache of material in order to 
effect the release of either Chambei's or of any member of his family. 

]\ir. Hebert. Did he tell you that was why he was keeping this 
cache ? 

Mr. Levine. That is what I understood to be the reason for certain 
material which he withheld. 

Mr. ITebekt. Not what you understood, Mr. Levine. What did Mr. 
Chambers tell you ? 

Mr. Levine. That is what he told me in effect, and that is what I 
understood, sir. 

Mr. Hebert. Did ]Mr. Berle ask him if he had any documentary 
evidence to present to substantiate the charges? 

Mr. Levine. I do not believe that he did ; I do not recall, sir, that 
that question was brought up. 

Mr. Hebert. Did Mr. Chambers himself volunteer the information 
to Mr. Berle that he did have documentary evidence? 

Mr. Levine. Not in my presence. It may have happened for a 
moment while I went to get a drink of water, or to the washroom, but 
not in my presence, sir. 

May I continue, or would you like to ask a question? 


Mr. Stripling. My principal interest, Mr. Chairman, is to determine 
Avhetlier or not any responsible person was put on notice that evidence 
was in existence. 

Mr. Lemxe. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sthipling. Now, Mr. Nixon and Mr. INfcDowell have taken testi- 
mon}' which bears iij)on this point, executive testimony. I would like 
to determiuo whether or not that information before their subcom- 
mittee is confirmed by any information you have as to where this evi- 
dence was, and why it was not brought forward. 

Do you know whether or not Mr. Chambers advised any agency of 
the Government, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or any official 
of the Government, that he had in his possession evidence regarding 
this conspiracy? 

Mr. Levixe. Mr. Chambers, to my knowledge, felt that having 
taken the matter up with President Ivoosevelt's secretary, huviug pre- 
sented the matter to the Assistant Secretary of State, he had gone far 
enough in his perilous position and he knew that I was hammering 
away, trying to find an o])ening either in the public mind, or in the 
governmental minds for the Chambers story. 

He knew — I believe he knew that when no action was forthcoming 
from the conference with Mr. Berle, I went to former Ambassador 
Bullitt — that was some 3 months later. I sketched Bullitt the whole 
thing, and gave him some additional bits of infornuition that I knew 
from Krivitsky, the whole story put before Bullitt. Bullitt also 
was impressed, excited, and said he would go to President Roosevelt 
with it. 

I described all the information in my possession, that is, without 
mentioning the name of Chambers to a high official in the State De- 
partment who had served in Moscow, Mr. Loy Henderson, who is now 
United States Ambassador in India. 

JNIr. Stripling. How do you spell that? 

ISIr Levine. Mr. Henderson, Boy, L-o-y, United States Ambassador 
to India. 

I kept in touch with Miss Adelaide Neall, N-e-a-1-1, senior editor of 
the Saturday Evening Post at that time, and a close co-worker of 
George Horace Mortimer for 30 years. 

She was excited ; she wanted to know all the developments. I fig- 
ured that this story would l)reiik and that the Saturday Evening Post 
and I might have a scoop. Nothing happened. 

A year later, in February or March, 1040, I spent 2 hours with Mr. 
Walter Winchell in Miami. I gave him in rough the Avhole story, 
without mentioning the name of Chambers. Mr. Winchell claimed 
that he had entree to the White House, that he knew the President 
and expressed a willingness and a desire to do something about it. 
Nothing hai)pened. 

After about a year and a half of futile efforts and spending quite a 
bit of my own money, I decided that neither the people of the United 
States nor the leaders in the Government at that time had sufficiently 
familiarized themselves with Soviet espionage to make the Chambers 
story credible; that it was utterly hopeless to proceed to bash one's 
head against a stone wall and one had to go on and make a living, and 
I abandoned my particular efforts. 

Mr. Sthipling. Do you know. Mr. Levine, whether or not the Fed- 
eral Bureau of Investigation subsequently interrogated Whittaker 


Chambers after the conference with Mr. Berle, I mean, of your own 
knowledge ? 

Mr. Levine. No, sir. 

Mr. Steipling. Mr. Chambers never told you that ? 

Mr. Levine. No, sir. 

Mr. Stripling. I am particularly interested in why he wanted to go 
to the President of the United States. You say that he was a patriotic 
American who wanted to get this matter before the President. Were 
there any other considerations that you were aware of ? 

Mr. Levine. Yes. I think the fear that he had that Hitler and the 
Nazis might get, via Moscow, all the information that he knew was 
being poured out from Washington to the Kremlin, preyed on his 
mind as it preyed on my mind. 

Mr. McDo^vELL. Did he say that, Mr. Levine? 

Mr. Levine. He said it in different words on different occasions to 
that effect, yes, sir. 

As I said before, the appalling effect of the Stalin-Hitler Pact, you 
know, shook him to his foundations, as it shook us all. He knew 
enough about Soviet underground activities to know that if Stalin 
could not supply grain he would supply American documents to 
Hitler. If he couldn't furnish oil, he could at least furnish disposi- 
tions of allied military forces to Hitler and buy his grace with Hitler 
that way. 

Not only Mr. Chambers knew it. General Krivitsky knew it, I 
knew it. 

Mr. Stripling. Now, Mr. Levine, did Chambers in your conferences 
with him regarding his participation in the Communist apparatus, 
did you gain any knowledge from him at that time that there were 
other apparatuses in operation in Washington besides the one in which 
he alleges to have been active ? 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. Both Mr. Chambers and General Krivitsky 
educated me to realize that a ring, or the rings of which Mr. Cham- 
bers had knowledge, were but a small part of a labyrinthal system 
which involved, to my subsequent knowledge, at least 10 separate 
centers or rings of Soviet undeiground activity in the United States. 

Mr.. Stripling. Now, just a minute. You say 10 rings? 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Stripling. Now, Mr. Chairman, if he is going to name any of 
these rings or any of the individuals mentioned in the rings, if Mr. 
Hebert's request is to stand, I think that should be executive. 

Mr. MuNDT. It should be executive in conformity with our com- 
mittee procedure, but if you have at your command the names of the 
leaders of any of these other rings, the committee certainly wants to 
get that information in executive session. 

Mr. Levine. Mr. Chairman, two or three of these can be mentioned, 
because as a matter of fact, they are all a matter of public knowledge. 
It is simply a question of getting to the bottom. Let's take one in- 
stance, the counterfeiting of American money by the Soviet military 

Mr. McDowell. The what ? 

Mr. Levine. The counterfeiting of American money, $100 bills by 
the Soviet military intelligence. 


It is a i"'ing wliich involved a Dr. Biutan who sei'vecl a IH-year sen- 
tence in Lewisburg, Pa., and who never told his story. It is a ring 
which involved Nick Dozenberg, an operative who testified before 
this connnittee and whom Krivitsky had known in Austria. 

Mr. STKirLiNG. Wasn't he also sentenced to prison. Nick Dozenberg? 

INIr. Levine. I believe lie served some sentence. It is a ring which 
involved, according to Krivitsky. the securing of American currency 
pa])er fi-om an American mill which had to be trans])()i-ted to Moscow 
in order to be able to print the $iUO bills there on genuine, authentic 
American stock. 

^Ir. IMuN'DT. Did you get your information about that ring from 
Mr. Chambers, fi-om General Krivitsky, or from some other source? 

Mr. Levine. ]\Iostly from Krivitsky, mostly from Krivitsky. 

Mr. MuxDT. Do you know whether Mr. Chambers knew that? 

]\fr. Levixe. I believe that Mr. Chambers knew of the case of Dr. 
Burtan. It was a matter of public record, but it was a case, Mr. 
Chairnum — I have to explain this in two or three sentences — that we 
could talk about, but you couldn't talk to outsiders, because people 
laughed at you, you know. I mean, we took it for gi'anted because 
the facts were there, and, as a matter of fact, the $100 bills are dis- 
played in the United States Treasury now. Anyone can go over and 
look at them. 

The whole inside story was known by Krivitsky; the story was 
printed ])artly in the Saturday Evening Post, pictures and every- 
thing else. The American people to this day never got to the bottom 
of that particular ring, because the main figure in it chose, even when 
a parole was offered to him, not to talk. He served his 15 years in 
full, and the conspiracy remains unbroken. It is just one of any 
number of other things, but I am using it as an illustration oidy. 

Mv. McDowell. Is he still in this country ? 

!^^r. Levine. Who? 

^Tr. ^McDowell. This man who served the 15 years. 

Mr. Levine. Oh, yes; he is an American, B-u-r-t-a-n. I am sure it 
is in the committee records. I am sure General Krivitsky testified 
about that. 

]\rr. SiTiiPLiNO. That is right. 

Mr. IMiTNOT. You may proceed. 

Mr. Striplixo. Do you know whether or not Mr. Chambers ever 
talked with anyone else in the State Department about this? You 
menlioned ]\Ir. Henderson. 

;Mr. Levine. Mr. Chambers did not speak to Loy Henderson, I did. 
But I do know that subsequently — and I will ask the chairman that the 
name be mentioned in executive session — Mr. Chambers was in touch 
with certain officials of the State Department : yes, sir. 

INIi'. SrRirLiNo. In which he set forth this information. l>ut you are 
not aware of the details? 

Mr. Levixe. I am not aware of the details, but I know a lot of time 
was spent by him with certain officials of the State Department. 

Mr. Striplixg. That is all I have. INIr. Chairman. 

Mr. MuxDT. Mr. Hebert said that he feels the name of the man in 
the State Department to whom Mr. Chambers talked could be made a 
public record, because then we can corroborate that. 


Mr. Stripling. Just a moment. I have read the testimony given 
by Mr. Chambers at the pretrial deposition in Bakimore, and in that 
deposition he names the person. The person whom he gave that in- 
formation to in some detail is involved or is responsible in some de- 
gree — I am not sure how much — with tlie security of the State 
Department. He is not a person who is publicly known, and I really 
don't think that his name should go into the record. 

Mr. MuNDT. All right. We will get it in executive session. That 
is all right. 

Mr. Levine. Mr. Chairman, may I add a few words to my answer 
to the last question in connection with the 10 rings? 

Mr. MuNDT. Go right ahead, sir. 

Mr. Levine. I feel very strongly, sir, that unless this committee, the 
Government, and the people of the United States fully appreciate the 
service rendered by Whittaker Chambers and in this manner encourage 
other members of the underground to come forward with their ma- 
terial and their stories, we will never get the truth, we will never 
break the conspiracy within the Government. For what you and I 
have seen is but a small segment of an enormous underground empire. 

I feel that there is altogether too much preoccupation and specula- 
tion as to why Chambers did not produce the documents in time, and 
that there is not enough concern about the persons who stole the 

I feel that Mr. Chambers was never, or was not at the time an 
employee of the Government and the people who stole the papers 
were employees. 

I think it should be the concern of the Government and of the 
people and of the press to focus the spotlight upon the persons who 
did the filching, upon the persons who protected them, upon the per- 
sons who gave them jobs, upon the superiors and all others who made 
this dreadful condition possible. 

The question before the country is not why Mr. Chambers commit- 
ted or did not commit an error of judgment, but what are we going 
to do in order to ferret out in all its enormity, this horrible 
monstrosity ? 

I just want to say in conclusion, sir, that in Canada the Soviet 
clerk Gousenko was rewarded by a grateful government for his serv- 
ices to mankind. He was given honorary citizenship. He has gotten 
protection from the Mounties, which he still enjoys. He got a pension. 

Chambers has rendered a similar, if not a greater service. That 
should be recognized by our press and by our authorities. They 
should realize the state of terror under which an American lived after 
his break with the Communist underground. He feared assassination 
or abduction of his wife and children. He saved the papers as 

The American people, I hope through this committee, will under- 
stand the fundamental issue involved in the Hiss-Chambers thing, and 
that is, let us get the entire truth, for I believe — and I am expressing 
an opinion now — that Mr. Chambers dealt with only 10 percent, and 
I think that is a liberal estimate, of the papers that were being rifled in 
at least 30 or 40 Government bureaus in Washington and were being 
shipped in dozens of suitcases, specially constructed in Moscow, for 
the transportation of spools of microfilm via Mexico, Canada, Europe, 
and Asia, all converging upon Moscow. They have our entire insides. 


Mr. MuNiyr. Mr. Levine, before askiiiir questions. I w(nil(l like 
to assure you, as chairman of the snbconiniittee handlino; tliis case, 
in connection with your criticism of the altitudes of some peoples who 
concentrate on the problem of why Chambers did not disclose this 
documentary evidence fu-st, and to play down the discovery of the 
people who stole the documents from the State De]iartment, that this 
committee has no control over the activities or attitudes of other 
blanches of government. But insofar as this committee is concerned, 
we are fjoino: to continue to try to disclose the identity of the man or 
people Avho did steal these documents in the Stale Department and 
deliver them to Chambers and other people, and that we propose to 
continue with this case until we have j^otten down to the bedrock 
of the fundamentals. 

Certainly you have placed your finfrer on one fundamental, and that 
is to find out who it was in the State Department who stole the docu- 
ments and delivered them to Chambers, and perha]is to other people. 

Now, I would like to ask you a question or two. and T am sui-e other 
members of the conunittee would, too. Have you finihihed your 
statement ? 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

]\Ir. ISIuxDT. I would like to ask you. first, a question which is more 
or less standard in cases of this kind, which I hope you will feel free to 

You said you were born in Russia and that brinjis it to mind to ask 
whether you are now, or ever have been, a member of the Communist 

INfr. Levine. No, sir. 

Mr. MuxnT. T would like to ask next whether you ever knew Mr. 
Whittaker Chambers by any other name. 

]\rr. Levine. Only subsequent to my meetiufj him. 

Mr. ISIuNDT. Either at the time you Icnew him, or subsequently, did 
you ever hear him referred to by the name of "George Crosley"^ 

Mr. Levine. Xo, sir; never. 

Mr. MuNDT. ]\fr. McDowell. 

INfr. IVfcDowELL. Mr. Levine, there were four people at the table 
at Mr. Berle's house? 

Mr. Levtne. Yes. sir. 

Mr. McDowEix. Will you identify those four? 

Mr. Levine. Yes. ^Mr. and !Mrs. Berle, Mr. Chambers, and yours 

Mr. INfrDoA^Tiix. Thank you. Now, you have also said that the 
apparatus that was described to you by Chambei's hei-e. vou feel there 
were 10 operating rings or apparatus operating in "Washington. We 
have discovered three. Some of the members know of one more, and 
some others kjiow of two moi-e, making five. Do vou still feel there 
are at least 10 operating or were operating in Washinirton? 

Mr. Levtne. That may not be the most fitting description. T feel 
that there are many more than 10. T know of at least 10 separate ef- 
forts by separate groups at separate times which require ]ii-obing to 
the bottom in order to expose at least 10, at least 10 rings. That is 
the best wav T can answer it. 

T think if the Canadian T?oval Commission found in little Canada 
that there were 7 or 8 parallel centers or rings in existence, I should 


not be surprised if in the United States Soviet secret service had 77 
underground cells scattered from Seattle to New Orleans, doing in- 
dustrial, political, governmental, scientific, and other espionage. 

Mr. McDowell. Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Levine, some of us 
feel there are 132 in the United States. 

Now, Mr. Levine, when the full committee meets, I intend to intro- 
duce this resolution which I trust will be adopted by the committee. 
With the permission of the chairman and the committee I will read 
the resolution. 

JNIr. JNlUNDT. Very well. 

Mr. McDowell (reading) : 

That tlie Committee on Un-American Activities has heard Mr. Whittaker 
Chambers in a series of hearings since the early part of August 1948, and as 
a direct result of his cooperation has been enabled to reveal to the Nation a 
vast network of Communist espionage involving high officials of our Government 
and the theft of documents vital to our national security. I am fully cognizant 
of the fact that Mr. Chambers appeared voluntarily, risking his life, his health, 
his position, and his public standing generally. 

I am fully appreciative of the high patriotic motives which moved him to act. 
The Committee on Un-American Activities wishes to express in behalf of the 
American people its appreciation and gratitude for the service Mr. Chambers has 
rendered. I am confident that his revelations will prove highly valuable and 
instrumental in enabling the incoming Congress to enact legislation that will 
effectively plug up the leaks which have been disclosed, and deal sternly with 
all future violators of our national security. 

At the same time, I hope that by I'evealing in all of its ugliness and sinister- 
ness the real nature of the Communist conspiracy against the United States, Mr. 
Chambers has set an example for thousands of other misguided individuals in 
the Communist movement, and that they, too, will renounce their traitorous 
conspiracy before it is too late, and before they are hopelessly enmeshed beyond 
redemption in the Communist fold. 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Kankin. 

Mr. Rankin. Mr. Levine, you spoke of General Krivitsky a while 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Rankin. I heard General Krivitsky's testimony, and shortly 
after that testimony was given he was found dead in a hotel here in 
Washington. You said that he was in the next room to you talking 
to Mr. Chambers ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Levine. After midnight, after sx3ending 2 or 3 hours with the 
two of them, I left them alone. 

Mr. Rankin. In what language were they talking ? 

Mr. Levine. German. 

Mr. Rankin. They were talking German? 

JNIr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Rankin. The reason I ask you that, your statement puzzled me 
a while ago, because when General Krivitsky appeared before the 
Dies Committee he spoke in Russian and had to have an interpreter, 
so your statement puzzled me in the beginning. 

So they were talking in German ? 

Mr. Levine. It is all very interesting, yes. 

Mr. Rankin. You say that he told Adolph Berle, who at that time 
was Under Secretary of State 

Mr. Levine. Assistant Secretary of State. 

Mr. Rankin. Assistant Secretary of State, about this espionage, 
about this filching of the records, the stealing, in other words, of the 


vital documents from the State Department. Did he tell Mv. Berle 
that he had some of those documents? 

Ml-. Lkmne. No, sir. That question was not asked, and he did not 
volunteer, in my hearinor, anythini; on that point. 

Mr. Kaxkix. You said you told Walter Winchell all this? 

Mr. T.EviNK. A year passed. Tlie Stalin-Hitler ]iact was on. Mr. 
Winchell concenti'ated his attention at that time ujion the Communists, 
and I felt — I was in Miami — that perhaps he would spring the story 
and do somethir-fr about it. 

^fr. Rankix. Did. you tell him what ISIi'. Chambers had told you? 

Mr. Lkvixe. I pretty well, without mentionin<i; the name of Cham- 
bers, without brinfring up the identity of the man, outlined to him 
everythinfj I had discovei-ed fiom Chaml)ers and Krivitsky about 
what was <roin<r on in Washington. He listened: he intimated that 
he had been a guest at the White House, and that he might and would 
do something. 

Mr. Raxkix. AVell. did you know of the existence of these docu- 
ments that yiv. Chambei's had in his possession? When did you learn 
about them ? 

Mr. Levixe. I learned about them in the sunnner of ';>!). I believe 
that some time in 1040 I asked Mr. Chambei-s about them, and he inti- 
mated to me. in such a way that I could not fpiite put my finger on it, 
that he had i)erhaps destroyed them. He indicated that he did not 
wish me to carry away the impression, when everything cooled off, that 
he had the documents. And in fact, he told me the documents wei-e 
available. He never told me that he had had them in his own pos- 
session because he used them as a safety shield for himself. 

INIr. Rankin. Did you ever report that to any other Government 

^fr. LE^^NE. T might have mentioned it to Loy Henderson whom I 
saw frequently, and to one or two other loyal State Depaitment ollicials 
whom T knew, but I don't think that they were in a position to do nnich 
abou it. They ate their hearts out and waited. 

Mr. Raxktx\ Of coui'se, Mr. Levine, what we are after is the facts, 
regardless of what anyone may think or say about Whittaker Cham- 
bers. The fact remains that he has turned over to us documents, more 
than a hundred of them, I will say, that were stolen fi-om the State 
Department back in those days. And I am convinced beyond a 
reasonable doubt that those documents not only contributed to the 
Hitler-Stalin pact, but they later contributed to the Japanese success 
at Pearl Harbor. 

What this committee is after, while the Department of Justice is 
shadow-boxing between Alger Hiss and Chambers in New York, 
instead of calling the grand jury together hei-e in Washington and 
backing up this committee in its investigation — what we nvo after is to 
get the facts. We want to know who is responsil)le for the theft of 
these documents, and if you have any other information on that sub- 
ject, I hope you will unbosom yourself and give it to us in full. 

Mr. Levtxr. Thaidc you. T think the most im]>oi-tant i-elevant in- 
formation is one which Congress has already tried to unravel, and that 
is the so-called State Dcpartmeiit espionage case, the case of Amerasia, 
which involves our policy in China, and which involved the theft of a 
couple of hundred top stn-ret documents in wartime, and which ended 
with the imprisonment of none of the six. 


I am referring, sir, to the six persons, Lt. Andrew Eoth, John 
Stewart Service, Stillwell's adviser on our China policy, Phillip 
Jaffee, manufacturer of Christmas cards, the possessor of a photostatic 
apparatus, a very costly one for the reproduction of top secret State 
Department, naval, military, and other papers and the three others 
invoh'ed in that matter. 

Mr. Rankin. I would like to have the other three names, if you 
have them. 

Mr. Levine. Yes. The names involved in addition to the three 
mentioned were Miss jNIitchell — Phillip Jaffee I mentioned. There 
was Kate Mitchell, I believe, John Stewart Service. Here are the 
names : 

Kate Mitchell, Marc Gayn, a journalist who used those documents 
in his journalistic profession, more recently a correspondent in Tokyo. 
Kate Mitchell is Kate L. Mitchell, coeditor of Amerasia. 

To me that case is in some respects more shocking than the present 
case, because it occurred in wartime, and because it involved a member 
of the armed services. 

Mr. Rankin. What time in the war did that happen? 

Mr. Levine. That happened in 1945. 

Mr. Rankin. "VMiat document are you referring to there? 

Mr. LE^^NE. I am reading an article by one of the six, Emanuel Lar- 
son, a minor figure, who describes the entire case from beginning to 
end in Plain Talk for October 1946. 

Mr. Rankin. Do you mean that those individuals had purloined 
documents from the State Department, or from any other depart- 
ment ? 

Mr. Le\^ne. I mean that some of those individuals did exactly that, 
and others were accomplices and made use of those documents. 

Mr. Rankin. During the war? 

Mr. LEv^NE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Rankin. They were stealing the secret documents? 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Rankin. These vital documents? 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Rankin. From the departments of this Government and sur- 
reptitiously passing them on to Moscow? 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Rankin. And at that time Moscow entertained the Japanese 
Ambassador, didn't it? 

Mr. Levine. That's right. 

Mr. MuNDT. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. Rankin. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MuNDT. I recall that case from reading it in the newspapers, 
but that happens to be a case which was handled by Attorney General 
Tom Clark's Department of Justice, and not this committee. I wish 
you could refresh us, if you know, what action the Department of 
Justice took to prosecute the people guilty of that crime. 

Mr. Levine. I believe, sir, that Mr. Clark was not the Attorney 
General at the time. 

Mr. MuNDT. Well, at least the Justice Department. 

Mr. Le\t[ne. In any event, some of these people were let go scot 
free. Some were fined, like Mr. Jaffee, $3,000, and one of them who 
was photographed, and the photographs appeared in the press at the 


time, John Stewart Service, as passing the documents, was rewarded 
by continuing him in the service of the United States Government at 
some outlying jiost. 

Mr. MuNDT. That wouUl indicate to me that if we are ever going 
to get at the people who have stolen these documents and ^iven them 
to Chambers, and get a conviction, the American public is goin<^ to 
have to rely upon this committee, and not the Department of Jus- 
tice, because on the basis of the record up to now, certainly there isn't 
much to hope for from the standpoint of the public. 

jMr. Rankin. Before I leave, let me say this to you 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

JMr. IIankin. General Krivitsky's statement before the Dies com- 
mittee was, to my mind, the most impressive warning that this Gov- 
ernment had received up to that time. And I remember one vocifer- 
ous individual whose name I will not mention, who seems to take me 
to task in a broadcast from Paris, used every influence he had to try 
to discount General Krivitsky's testimony before the Dies committee. 
Thank you. 

Mr. ]\IuNDT. Mr. Nixon. 

Mr. Rankin. And that individual is continually attacking this 
connnittee. Now, the members of this committee have no ax to grind. 
We get no extra compensation. We get all the smear and all the abuse 
that can be heaped upon us, not only by the reds, but their fellow 
travelers, their SA'mpathizers, and their hired stooges all over the 
Nation. So what this committee is trying to do is to save this country. 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Nixon. 

Mr. Nixon. Mr. Levine. 

INIr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

JMr. Nixon. The purport of your testimony, as I understand it. is 
that Mr. Chambers did make this information available to high-rank- 
ing (lovernment authorities in 1939. 

JMr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

IMr. Nixon. In your opinion at that time, did Mr. Chambers give 
sufiicient information that those high-ranking authorities, had they 
acted, could have stoj^ped the conspiracy at that time? 

Mr. Levine. Absolutely. 

IMr. Nixon. And their failure to act, in other words, was respon- 
sible for the conspiracy continuing, if it did continue after that time? 

Mr. Levine. Yes; with this additional observation, that their failure 
to act may have been due to short-sightedness, or blindness. 

Mr. Nixon. JMr. Levine, I am not concei-ned about placing the 
blame upon any high-ranking ofiicials who failed to act as of a certain 
time. We are faced in tliis hearing with a very serious fact, as brought 
out particularly by the testimony in open and executive sessions yes- 
terday and today, that information of the most confidential character 
has gone to the agents of a foreign power, which at the ]iresent time 
is unfriendly to the United States, and which in times past has adojjted 
attitudes and policies which are unfriendly to the United States. 

What this committee has to do — and this is beyond and apart from 
the function of the grand jury, which can only convict or indict for a 
crime — this committee has the responsibility of pointing out to the 
people, the American people, wherein our elected and appointed offi- 


cials have failed to take action which they could have taken which 
would have protected the national security. 

Now, in that connection I understand, then, that there were at least 
three hiijh-ranking officials to whom you sent this information, either 
by Mr. Chambers or by yourself, at least in some form it was conveyed ? 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Nixon. And to your knowledge no action of a substantial char- 
acter was taken as a result of those conversations ? 

Mr. Levine. That is absolutely correct. 

Mr. Nixon, you raised a point which 1 think, if you will permit me, 
or if the chairman will permit me, I would like to supplement, when 
you spoke of our failure to act. 

At that very time I had learned from Krivitsky of the existence of 
two top Soviet spys in the British cabinet, and in the Committee of 
Imperial Defense. One of those two I knew by name. 

I went to Ambassador Lothian, after a proper introduction. Tlie 
information was checked and found to be correct, although he was 
somewhat skeptical when I jfirst called upon him; 2 weeks later I was 
called from Connecticut to come to Washington. They made arrange- 
ments to meet Krivitsky through his attorney. They made arrange- 
ments, the British, to take him to Canada and from there to Great 
Britain, and I think before General Krivitsky arrived in Great Britain 
tlie spy in the British cabinet, whose name I gave to Lothian at that 
time — his name was King — he was found to be there. He was spotted, 
and he was executed in the Tower of London. 

That is what the British Government did when information was 
conveyed to it by me, acting exactly in the same capacity in which I 
acted w^ith reference to Krivitsky and Chambers. 

Mr. Nixon. Mr. Chairman, at that point I want to point out a very 
significant fact. Mr. Chambers testified before the Committee on 
Un-American Activities for the first time on August 3d of this year. 
Most of the members presently sitting were present at the time of that 
hearing and at that time, if you will read the testimony, you will find 
that Mr. Chambers did not present to the Committee on Un-American 
Activities as much in the way of factual information as he had previ- 
ously presented to Mr. Berle, and as he had previously presented to 
Government agencies, who, over a period of years, have interviewed 
him a number of times preceding his appearance before the committee. 

Nevertheless, as a result of Mr. Chambers' appearance before the 
committee at that time, rather than simply giving that information — • 
and I use a term which is better to describe it, I think, than what 
we might term classical language — rather than giving that informa- 
tion the brush-off, or kiss-off, this committee, in spite of public criti- 
cism, in spite of criticism from tlie press, proceeded to dig into a very 
nasty situation. And only as a result of this committee's following 
up on that situation, and but for this committee's following up that 
situation, for the first time documentary evidence in great quantities 
has been made available, which proves beyond doubt the existence of 
a Communist conspiracy in this country which was extremely effective 
in obtaining the most confidential documents for the Russian 

Now, I make that statement advisedly. I am not overexaggerating 
the facts. All that you have to do is to read the testimony or to 


romoiiibor the tostimonv that has been given by State Department 
ollicials themselves. 

I think that all of us are aware, tuid certainly the members of 
this committee are aware, and I am conlident the mem])ers of the 
press are aware, that the Dej)artment of Justice has indicn((Ml that 
they want this connnittee to drop its investigation, and I use that 
term advisedly, because in spite of our repeated attempts, the Depart- 
ment of Justice — in spite of our repeated requests — has made it clear 
that they do not want this connnitt(M> to li(\'ir any witnesses who are 
ijivolved in this investigation. 

^Ir. Chairman, I for one, as :i iiiciubrr of this connnittee, am stat- 
ing now ])ublicly that I do not intend to entrust to the De|)artment 
of Justice or to the present administration, which foi- 10 years has 
had these facts and done nothing about it, the resi)onsibility which 
is ours, as well as theirs, of putting the spotlight on these activities, 
Avhcther or not a technical crime has been conunitted. 

Now. in that connection T wish to make one othei" observation. The 
De]iartment of Justice has in(licate<l, as they sliould — and I may 
disagree with some of mv colleagues on this point — has indicated 
an interest in indicting ^Nfr. Chambers for technical violations of 
law, ])articularly technical perjui-y, which he may be guilty of by 
reason of the fact that he testified befoi'e this connnittee in one con- 
nection in one way. nnd a later connection in another way. The 
Depai-tment of Justice has that resi)onsil)ility. 

But on the othei' hand. I think that it is high time foi- us to I'ecog- 
nize. as Mr. Levine has put it very well here this evening, that ^fr. 
Chambers' technical violations of th(> law. his reasons for failinc: to 
turn over this infoi'uiation in documentary form to the Govennnent, 
or to this committee jn-ior to this time ; where the in foi-mation has l)een 
])rior to this time, aiul the other collatei'al issues which have been 
raised, and T think mistakenly in some cases by reason of poor judg- 
ment by some of the outstanding editorial writers in the coimtry, that 
all of those reasons are beside the ]>oint. insofar as the duty and 
responsibility of this connnittee and the Department of Justice is 

Because in that connection we must remember this one fact: This 
connnittee and the Dejiartment of ,Iustice hav(> the pi-imarv responsi- 
bility to be concerned over the national security. Mi-. Chambers has 
confessed. Afr. Chambers is in the o])en. ^Fr. Chambers is no longer 
a danger to the national security, l)ut the men who fnr-nished this 
information to Mr. Chambers have not been brought to justice. 

They may not even be guilty of technical crimes due to tlie la]ise 
of the statute of limitati(ms, in which case the grand jury lia> no ii<.rht 
whatever to hear tlieir case, and in that case this coininittee has a solemn 
resj)onsil)ility, despite the elTorts of the administration to silence this 
committee and keep the facts from the people — and T say that, not of any political iinj)lications, b?cause this is bigger than 
jiolitics — this committee has the res))onsibilitv to contiinie its investi- 
gation and to call every witness before it until we find who was re- 
sponsible for l)ringing this information to Mr. Chambers, and to see 
wliether or not those people are still engaged in that kind of activity. 

ATr. Kaxktx. Afr. Nixon, regardless of the statute of limitations, the 
American bo^'s who were killed, who lost their lives as a result of this 


treason are still dead, and America is still paying the penalty. It is a 
pity we haven't had the same action taken here that was taken by the 
British Government. We might not have had a Pearl Harbor. 

Mr. Nixon. Mr. Rankin, I appreciate that remark, and I want to say 
this at this time 

Mr. Kankin. I was going to say, regardless of what you think of 
Whittaker Chambers, the fact remains that we have these documents 
that were stolen, these secret, vital documents that were stolen out of 
the State Department at that time. 

]\Ir. Nixon. Mr. Rankin, at this point, the point I wish to make clear 
is this: I realize that what I have just said will be interpreted in some 
quarters as politics, speech making, and it will have to be taken for 
what it is. But those are the cold, hard facts. That is why I am up 
here, and that is why I think the rest of the members of this committee 
are uj) here meeting night and day. I can assure you that during the 
times M'e are not meeting, w-e are working most of the night as well. 

Now, in order to settle a couple of these collateral issues, so that 
those who have been so concerned with them that they have failed 
to keep their eyes on the ball as to who furnished this information and 
w^hether they are still at large furnishing this information, we have 
had some comments u])on two of those collateral issues tonight from a 
second-hand source, Mr. Levine. 

One of the collateral issues which seems to have caught the imagina- 
tion of the press and the public, and rightfully so, is of course the 
matter of why didn't Mr. Chambers turn over this information ? I say 
it is a collateral issue because the major issue is that now he has 
turned it over, and that as a result of that we have a responsibility 
to see who turned it over to him. 

We have had second-hand information on that. We have had 
guessing in the press, some of it wrong, some of it right. I think 
that it is time tonight to settle tliat issue once and for all by the best 
source of all, and that is Mr. Chambers. 

Mr. Chambers testified in New York City on Monday night. He 
was asked the specific question as to why he refused to turn over this 
information prior to this time, and I will say that he was cross- 
examined most closely by Mr. McDowell, Mr. Stripling, and myself, 
who were there along with other staff members at that time, on that 
very point. 

And with the permission of the committee, I should like to read 
Mr. Chambers' statement as to why he did not turn over that informa- 
tion, and for the benefit of the members of the committee let me say 
this : There are no new names in this testimony. It is only the version 
of the man himself when he was pressed on that point, and I think 
since there has been so much information on it, it should go into the 
record at this point. 

Mr. Chairman, may I have that permission ? 

Mr. Hebert. Are there any names ? 

Mr. Nixon. There are no names, Mr. Hebert, I assure you. 

Mr. Stripling. Just a moment. There is one name mentioned. 

Mr. Nixon. I will not use the name that is mentioned. 

Mr. ISIuNDT. You may read it. 


Mr. Njxon. I am reading from Mr. Chambers' testimony: 

Every ex-Commnnist is faced at the moment of liis break with the Coninuinist 
Party by tlie question. "Shall I be an iiiformerV" I faeed tliis question very 
early, liut I was reluetant to inform. In VSM), as is well known, I felt com- 
pelled, by the war siHiation in Euroix! to a<t upon the knowledt;e I had, and I 
then went to Adoljih Herle, then Assistant Secretary of Strife. I thought at that 
time an investij-'ation would be puslud on the basis of the facts which I had 
told him, now that there were Connnuuisis in the Government and in the State 

1 reiurned to New York after my conversation with Berle, believing that a 
full investigation would be pushed, that I would give all jjossible help to that 
investigation, and that the espionage angle would certainly be developed. I 
heard nothing more of the matter for at least 2 years. 

Alter tliat lapse of time another very important factor in an ox-Comniunist 
niiiid bi'gaii to have full play, and I sought in my testimony to do two tilings: 
My one purpose was to destroy the Conununist conspiracy or to stop its activities. 
My (ither purpose was to do no more injury than necessary to the human elements 

Most of the men in the Communist underground apparatus were men of high 
type, .some of tiiem widely recognized for intelligence and ability. They had 
been my friends. I had been in their homes and knew their wives and cliildreii 
whose faces I could remember. Very important to an ex-Conuuunist is the 
question of other (^onununists breaking with the Communist Party. Breaking 
with the Comnnniist I'arty is not an easy matter. It takes strength of purjiose, 
and it takes, above all, time for reversing the pattern of a lifetime and the con- 
sequences may be dire. Time is the essence of such a break, and I desired to 
give these people an opportunity to make their own break, damaged as little as 
possible by me. 

Mr. Stripling then asked a question: 

Have you had access to, or have you received any documents from the State 
Department since 1938? 

Mr. Chambkhs. No. 

Mr. SniiPLiNc;. Have you talked with anyone who had State Department 
documents in his possession that you were aware of since 1938? 

Mr. CiiAMBEES No one, except the man — 

and I delete the name — 

who had secreted the documents I gave him. 

Mr. R.\NKrx. "Was that testimony under oath? 

Mr. MuNDT. That is under oath ; yes, sir. 

INIr. Nixon. I say in this connection, Mr. Chairman, that there are, of 
course, additional sections of testimony on that point. It is one of 
the reasons why Mr. Chambers must be brought before the conunittee 
and be allowed to elaborate on that very important issue, although it 
is a collateral issue, as I have indicated. But I tliiidv a piirpost' has 
been served by bringing before the committee at this time (1) the 
reason that Mr. Chambers gave to the committee for failing to turn 
over the information; and (2) the fact that this information had been 
secreted since 1938, and had not been divulged since that time to any 
foreign power. 

I also wish to comment upon that particular bit of testimony ])y 
Mr. Chambers and upon IVIr. Levine's testimony to this effect: The 
indication is at the present time that Mr. Chambers will certainly be 
indicted for perjury. The indications are also that ^Ir. Chambers 
will be indicted for ix'ijurv ])robably before any of the other people 
involved in this particular conspiracy are indicted. 

I wish to point out to the Department of Justice to proceed along 
that line, and I am making public this statement tonight, in the event 
this occurs, that they will thereby have probably destroyed their 


only opportunity to obtain an indictment of the other individuals in- 
volved, because the star witness against the other individuals will have 
been an indicted and convicted perjurer. 

I should also like to state in that connection that as Mr. Levine so 
well pointed out tonight, the only way, because of the strict organiza- 
tion of the Communist conspiracy in this country and other countries, 
that you can bring any Communist conspiracy to light, is through the 
testiinony of a confessed Communist, and the way to give the greatest 
encouragement to the Communist conspiracy in this country is to stop 
this particular investigation by simply indicting the man who turned 
over the information to the committee and made it available to the 
country. I hold no brief for Mr. Chambers. I think Mr. Chambers 
should have told the entire story to the committee. I wish that he 
had done so. But those facts are gone. 

We are faced with the hard fact now that is far more important 
than that, that the damage has been done, that the documents are here, 
that they were turned over, and that the people who turned them over 
are still at large. 

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to have taken the time of the committee. 

Mr. Levine. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Levine. 

Mr. Levine. Allow me to say a few words. 

As a former foreign correspondoiit and a student of foreign affairs, 
I think there is one aspect of the matter which should be stressed in 
connection with the statement of Representative Nixon, namely, the 
indictment of Chambers in the cold war being waged today will negate 
and nullify most of the money and propaganda which the Voice of 
America is spending abroad in defense of this country. 

Outside of the United States, the proposed shocking indictment of 
Mr. Chambers will mean that we punish the people who helj) us in 
the fight against communism and we reward the people who are serv- 
ing as Stalin's agents in our midst today. 

I can imagine nothing more calamitous as a pre-Pearl Harbor 
move for the third world war, than this particular strategy in some- 
body's immature mind, if that be the case. 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Hebert. 

Mr. Hebert. Mr. Levine, I just have a few clarifying questions I 
would like to ask, just to make the record clear. I understood you to 
say that Mr. Chambers was in touch with approximately 10 percent 
of the Communist apparatus, and that that was a liberal estimate. I 
think you meant to say a conservative estimate ? 

Mr. Levine. A conservative estimate ; I am sorry. 

Mr. Hebert. I didn't want the record to stand that you said a 
liberal estimate. 

Now, there is one other matter which I think should be directed to 
the attention of the committee that I think is most important, and 
which seems to have escaped or gotten lost in the general confusion, 
and that is, as I understand it, these documents we are discussing, the 
documents which the committee has the physical possession of. Those 
documents were never turned over to the enemy. I think I am correct 
on that. 

Mr. Rankin. We don't know. 

80408 — 48— pt. 2 4 


Mr, Hkhert. I know, but wc know they were microtilnied. In other 
words, these are the documents after Chainl)ers decided to break with 
the Coninuniists. Now, he was a Connnunist functionary for some 2 
years, accordiuijf to his own admission, in Washinj^ton, so the direction 
of the committee at tliis time shouhl be (hawn to tlie fact that we are 
in possession of some two or tliree hundred documents or papers which 
are merely the tag end that never reached Russian hands. 

]\Ii. MiiXDT. A\'e h<)])e. 

]\Ir. IIkuekt. We iiope, but k'l us <j:ive them a break and the beneht of 
the doubt and say that these two or thi-ee luiiulred documents never 
reached tlie hands of the Russians. Yet, can we conceive how many 
more iiun(beds. or ])ossibly t]u)usands of documents reached the Rus- 
sians through the hands of Cluimbers as a Conununist functionary? 
We to this day don't know who the individual or individuals were in 
the Dejjartment of State wlio had access to those files, who gave them 
to Cliambei's who was merely (he messenger boy carrying them from 
the traitor in the State Department to tlie enemy in the Krcndin in 

I think that is one thing we have to keep in our minds, and just 
wonder how ex]iansive an(l how far-fetched this whole ])ro]iosition is, 
and direct attention also to the fact that tiiis conunittee is not the De- 
partment of Justice, nor a detective agency. AVe are not charged with 
the responsibility of apprehending tjie criminal. We are charged with 
the res]K)nsibility of bi'inging to the attention of the proper authorities 
the fact that a crime has been conunilted. Then it becomes incumbent 
upon and the responsibility of the proper agency of the Government 
to apprehend that criminal when they know a crime has been com- 
mitted and to ]~)rosecute liim to the fullest extent of the law. 

In that connection, let me say this: The conunittee needs no defense 
of itself. The committee's work stands for itself, Mr. Chairman. The 
fact, and the cold fact still remains that if it had not been for the ac- 
tivity of tliis committee with its errors of omission and commission 
which wc all commit — but nevei- an error of the heart or eri'or of intent 
or purpose — if it had not been for the activities of this committee over 
a ])eriod of yeai's, this country Avould not have been alerted to the 
danger of communism, nor would it liave realized the infdtration of 
comnnniism in this (lovej'ument. 

Finally, the fact still remains that if the conuuittcc had not given 
attention to Mr. Chambei's and if Mr. Chambers had not appeare(l 
before this conunittee and given the limited or the cotiservat ive amount 
of testimony which he oiiginally gave, had not named one Alger Hiss, 
Hiss would not have sued Chambers for libel, and if Hiss had not 
sued Chambers for lib(<l. the documentary evidence would not be before 
the public today. 

It all tui'ns back to the fact that this committee insistcMJ u|)on and 
gave attention to the fact, and now it is in the hands of the pr<)i)er 
agents of this Goveinment to pi-osecute to the fullest extent of (lie law, 
or else acknowledge their guilt and their dereliction. 

Mr. Rankin. Mr. Hebert, may I coriect you on one thing? W^e did 
not get the origimils of these documents. The originals j)i<)l)abiy 
went into the hands of the Russian agents. We merely got the micro- 
film of them that were taken at the time. 

Ml-. Hkmkkt. Oh, Mr. Chairman, tlie originals are back, we hope. 
They are cliecking tlie State Department files now to ascertain that. 


Mr. Rankin. But the files they took out, we haven't even got the 
copies. We got tlie microfihn. But the copies that were stolen were 
turned over to Russian agents. 

Mr. Hebert. But the mechanics of this, which I understand are 
well known already, that this traitor or traitors in the Department 
of State — how many there are, or whichever level they are — took from 
the files of the State Department these important documents 

Mr. Rankin. And had them copied. 

Mr. Hebert. Brought them to Chambers, who in turn had a Com- 
munist photographer photograph or microfilm these documents. Then 
the microfilm was given to the Russian agent to be dispatched to the 
Kremlin, and the documents themselves w^ere returned to the State 
-Department files. 

Mr. Rankin. That is not my understanding. My understanding is 
that they made these copies and turned the copies over to Mr. Cham- 
bers. Mr. Chambers had those copies microfilmed and the copies them- 
selves were turned over to somebody else. 

Mr. MuNDT. I will ask the chief investigator to correct me if I am 
wrong, but I think Mr. Hebert has described the mechanics of this 
operation exactly correct. The one thing that we do not know, of 
course, is whether the Communist photographer made an extra print 
to send with somebody direct. 

Mr. Hebert. We don't know that. 

Mr. MuNDT. We do not know that, but we know that the original 
documents were returned by this traitor, this smuggler, this thief, 
back to the State Department the next morning as he came back for a 
new batch of supplies. I think Mr. Hebert has described the device 

Mr. Nixon. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chambers so testified on Monday 

Mr. Stripling. Yes. The whole operation, Mr. Chairman, is a mat- 
ter of record before the committee. All the details of how these docu- 
ments were obtained, and according to the testimony of Mr. Chambers 
who he obtained them from, is a matter of record before the commit- 
tee. The confirmation of certain material facts is what we are trying 
to determine now. 

Mr. Hebert. And don't let us lose sight of the fact, and again to 
reiterate, that the main culprit, the main offender against the Ameri- 
can people is not the messenger boy Chambers, but the trigger man 
in tlie State Department. 

]Mr. McDowell. Mr. Hebert, may I tell you that it was testified 
under oath last Monday night that the details of how these things were 
removed from the Department of State, where they were taken to, 
in what fashion they were taken, liow they were photographed, how 
they got back the next day, is all in the record. 

Mr. MuNDT. And that is in entire conformity with what Mr. Hebert 
just said? 

Mr. McDowell. Exactly so. 

Mr. Stripling. The possibilities which Mr. Rankin raised, how-, 
ever, are still open, Mr. Mundt. 

Mr. Mundt. The State Department is now checking that. 

Mr. Stripling. Some were microfilmed and sent as microfilm. Some 
were copied and sent as copies, but it is still possible that extra copies 
were made, or that extra copies or prints of microfilm were made. 


Mr. MuNDT. That is correct. 

Mr. Kankin. And it was testified that the man who was taking 
these docmnents from the files liad his wife to copy them, and he took 
tlie ori<rinals back and turned tlie copies over to Mr. Chambers. Mr. 
Chambers had those copies microfihned, but the copies have never 
been turned over to tliis committee. 

In my opinion they were turned over to the Russian agents. 

Mr. MuxDT. Mr. Hebert, any more questions? 

Mr. McDowell. It shoukl be remembered, Mr. Chairman, that Miss 
Bentley testified on various occasions that she sometimes took her 
material to New York in her lady's bag, and sometimes in her shopping 
bag, and sometimes it was quite a bundle. So all sorts of material 
went out. 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Vail is next, but I want to add one thought ta 
what Mr. Ilebert has pointed out, that this committee has one addi- 
tional function which I am sure he would have expressed, except that 
he was dealing with another point. In addition to the functions which 
we have, we also have the responsibility of determininp; what new 
legislation is necessary to make these espionage rings stop functioning, 
if they are still functioning, or to prevent them from starting all over 
again. This connnittee expects to recounnend legislation to that end. 

Mr. Vail. 

Mr. Vail. In your opinion, I\Ir. Levine, are there other potential 
informers whose services might at some future date become available 
to this committee, or some other governmental agency? 

Mr. Levine. Yes. In my opinion, out of the 80,000 members, known 
and secret of the Communist Party of the United States, about 1 
percent are operators for the Soviet secret service. That is roughly 
about 800. I should say that it would take an almost superhuman 
and concentrated effort to unearth most of the cells and to disclose 
most of the operations. 

Mr. Vail. Do you believe that that element is watching the opera- 
tion of the grand jury investigation closely in New York at this 

Mr. Levine. Not only in New York — right here in Washington, 

Mr. Rankin. What was that question, Mr. Vail? 

Mr. Vail. I inquired as to whether or not that element is watching 
carefully the progress of the grand jury investigation in New York. 

Mr. ^iuxDT. And you heard the answer? 

Mr, Rankin. Yes. 

Mr. MuNDT. Go ahead, sir. 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Vail. In the event of the indictment, subsequent conviction 
and imprisomnent of Chambers, what effect, in your (>]nnion will that 
have on the possibility of obtaining information from such sources, 
at any future date? 

Mr. Levine. I think it will make espionage safe. It Avill be a 
postwar bonus to Stalin which he never expected, and which he will 
greatly appreciate. I think it will speed up the process of jiutrefying 
this countiy from within, which Stalin is t icnicndously interested in. 

If you will recall, sir. he told General Krivitsky in li>.")T in a mid- 
night session in the Kremlin, describing France, with a shrug of the 
shoulders, "Well, France, a putrid corpse." And he was right, because 


lie knew how manj^ people he had within the government and within 
industry and the national organism of France, better even than Krivit- 
sky did. 

Well, when a despot like Stalin can command such people as we have 
discovered, good, native Americans of the best families — and Cana- 
dians, go back to the record of the Canadian Royal Commission — of 
the best education, and if he can command them not by the dozen, 
and not by the score, but by the hundreds in key positions, maybe 
tomorrow, if we proceed with such indictments he will say of America, 
"Well, just another putrid corpse ready to fall at the first blow of the 

. Mr. Vail. At this time I would like to introduce into the record 
of this hearing a transcript of the testimony in the hearing held in 
New York last Monday night. 

A question by Mr. Stripling to Mr. Chambers [reading] : 

When did you leave these documents with Levine? 
Mr. Chambers. 

Mr. Stripling. Mr. Vail, to make the record straight, that is not 
this Mr. Levine that is reing referred to. 

Mr. McDowell. It was Mr. Nathan Levine. 
Mr. Vail (reading) : 

As I have already said, I left the documents with him some time in 1938, pre- 
sumably shortly after I broke with the Communist Party. 

Mr. Stripling. What did you tell him about them? 

Mr. Chambers. I asked him to hide them for me and not to tell anyone where 
I hid them, but if anything should happen to me, meaning, if I should be killed, 
to turn them over to my wife, or to make them public in some way. 

That is all. 

Mr. MuNDT. Is that all, Mr. Vail? 

Mr. Vail. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Stripling. I do not have the record before me, but I believe 
the name is Levin, L-e-v-i-n. 

Mr. Vail. In the record it is L-e-v-i-n-e. 

Mr. MuNDT. That can be checked and corrected. 

Mr. Stripling. We have the full name. 

Mr. INIcDowELL. Well, there is no connection between the two men; 
that has been thoroughly established. 

Mr. MuNDT. Any similarity between the names is just a coincidence. 

Mr. McDowell. It happened in Brooklyn. 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Levine, before you conclude, I would like to an- 
nounce that we would like to meet with you briefly in the committee 
room in executive session. You have been very helpful and very 

One thing that strikes me, as we conclude this hearing, is the fact 
that the Department of Justice has had access to this information 
for 10 years, as has been brought out by committee member after com- 
mittee member. Not until this committee of Congress disclosed the 
documentary evidence has any activity been taken in the direction of 
ascertaining and punishing the evildoers. 

I would like to add as one who has listened somewhat monotonously 
to the repetition of a phrase rather recently, that this is a "do-nothing" 
Congress, that from the standpoint of punishing and disclosing espio- 
nage in Government, we certainly have had a "do-nothing" admin- 


We will stand adjounied- 

Mr. Kaxkix. Wait just a niimitc, I want to say this, now. 

Koirardk'ss of what tlu'v do to Cluuuheis, the fact still remains that 
we have tliese stolen documents, and all the prosecution of Chambers 
can't chanfje that fact. 

Mr. MuNDT. We will be in ex(>cutive session innned'iately in the 
connnittee room. 

(\\'hereupon, at 10 p. m., the committee adjourned to reconvene in 
executive session.) 



United States House of Representatives, 

Special Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11 : ?>() a. m., in the caucus 
room, Old House Office Building, Hon. Karl E. Mundt (acting chair- 
man) presiding. 

Committee members present: Representatives Karl E. Mundt (pre- 
siding), John McDowell, Richard M. Nixon, Ricliard B. Vail, John 
E. Rankin, and F. Edward Hebert. 

Staff members present : Louis J. Russell, William A. Wheeler, and 
Courtney Owens, investigators; Benjamin Mandel, director of re- 
search ; and A. S. Poore, editor. 

Mr. Mundt. The committee will come to order. 

The Chair would like to say that the committee has been in execu- 
tive session. The roll has been called, and 100 percent of the mem- 
bership of the subcommittee is present. We are in the process of 
interrogating the witness on the stand who has been sworn, and I will 
ask Mr. Russell to start with the interrogation of the witness afresh. 

Mr. Russell. Mr. Chairman, will you swear the witness again, since 
this is an open session ? 

Mr. Mundt. Stand and be sworn, Mr. Wadleigh. 

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give is the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I do. 

Mr. Mundt. You may be seated, 


Mr, Russell. Mr. Wadleigh, will you state your full name? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Henry Julian^ Wadleigh, 

Mr. Russell. Wlien and where were you born, Mr. Wadleigh ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Greenfield, Mass., February 4, 1904. 

Mr. Russell. What is your present address ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Route 3, Vienna, Va. 

Mr. Russell. Are you employed at the present time ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. No. 

Mr. Russell. Will you furnish the committee in chronological order, 
insofar as possible, a record of your past employment, both with the 
Federal Government and other agencies ? 



Mr. Wadleigh. In 1930 1 was employed by the Federal Farm Board. 
In ll)o2 I was transferred to the Dej^artment of A<2;riculture. In 
]0-'>() I was transferred to the State Department. In 1943 I was trans- 
ferred to FEA. In 1944 I was transfeired to the Department of Agri- 
cidture. In 194(5 I resi^nied from the Department of Agriculture and 
was appointed to a position in UNRKA. 

After the termination of the work in UNRRA, I was employed for 
a time by the Italian Govermnent as an economist.. 

Mr. RussEUL. "Would yon furnish the committee with a resume of 
your educational background? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I was educated mainly in Europe. I went to the 
College of Oxford ; I went to the London School of Economics and 
on returning to the ITnited States, I had 1 years graduate work in 
the University of Chicago. 

Mr. Russell. While you were employed by the State Department, 
in what divisions were you an economist? 

Mr. AVadlkigit. I was in the Division of Trade Agreements from 
193G, until the war in Europe broke out. Then I was employed in 
the office of one of the special assistants to the Secretary of State. 
In 1943, 1 was sent abroad on a State Department mission to Italy. 

Mr. Russell. Who were your innnediate superiors while you were 
employed in the State Department ? 

]Mr. Wadleigh. Henry (xrady in the Trade Agreements Division, 
then Harry Hawkins, then Leo Pasvolsky, special assistant to the 
Secretary of State, and in Italy, Henry Grady.. 

I\Ir. Russell. Who were the Under Secretaries or Assistant Secre- 
taries of the Department of State in the various divisions in which 
you were employed ? 

]Mr. Wadleigh. Mr. Say re was Assistant Secretary in charge of 
the Trade Agreements Division when I first was employed there. Mr. 
Acheson later took Mr. Sayre's place. 

When I worked with Mr. Pasvolsky there was no Assistant Secre- 
tary in charge of the oflice in which I worked. 

Mr. Russell. While 3'ou were employed by the United States Gov- 
ernment, did you ever become acquainted with one Whittaker Cham- • 

Mr. Wadleigh. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
the answer might incriminate or degrade me. 

Mr. Russell. Have you read the newspapers stories regarding cer- 
tain testimony which Whittaker Chambers gave before this committee 
at various times? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I read the newspapers and I naturally have seen 
some of those stories. 

Mr. RussEivL. As a result of the testimony which Whittaker Cham- 
bers gave before this connnittee, and the subsecjuent printing in the 
newspapers, did you acquire any animosity against Air. Chambers? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
the answer might inrriminate me, 

]\Ir. Ri'ssELL. Mr. Wadleigh, I show you a photograph and ask you 
if you can identify the likeness which appears thereon. 

5lr. W.UiLKiGH. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
it might incriminate me. 

Mr. Ri ssELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like for the record to show 
that this is a photograph of Whittaker Chambers. 


Mr. Wadleigli, while you were employed by the Department of 
State, or by the United States Government, did you become acquainted 
with one Alger Hiss ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
it might incriminate me — that the answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. Russell. Mr. Wadleigh, while you were employed by the De- 
partment of State, did you have access to restricted information? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Some kinds only, 

Mr. MuNDT. Did you say "some kinds" or "sometimes"? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Some kinds. There are many different kinds of 
restricted information. 

Mr. Russell. Mr. Wadleigh, I show you a document which has 
been identified by the State Department as being a restricted docu- 
ment, or a top-secret document, which is dated January 8, 1938, and 
which is signed by Harry C. Hawkins, and ask you if you have ever 
seen this document. 

Mr. Wadleigh. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
the answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. Russell. The INIr. Hawkins who signed that document was one 
of your superiors in the State Department, was he not? 

Mr. Wadleigh. That is a matter of public record. 

Mv. Russell. Mr. Wadleigh, while you were employed by the De- 
partment of State, did you ever furnish restricted documents or re- 
stricted confidential information to any individual, either within the 
State Department or who was not employed by the State Depart- 
ment ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
the answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. Russell. While you were employed by the State Department, 
did any individual ever identify himself to you as a Soviet agent, 
or an agent of the Soviet Government? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
the answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. Russell. Did you ever turn over to any unauthorized person 
while you were employed by the State Department any restricted 
information whatsoever ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
the answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. MuNDT. The Chair would like to ask the witness a question at 
that point. 

Do you realize, Mr. Wadleigh, that you are in a position to answer 
the questions asked you in the negative, that your answer might tend 
to refute the charges made against you ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I beg your pardon, I didn't understand that ques- 

Mr. MuNDT. Do you realize that you are in a position to answer 
under oath in the negative the questions asked you, that your reply 
might tend to refute the charges made against you, instead of to 
incriminate you ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. It might. 

Mr. MuNDT. You realize that ? 

Very well, proceed, Mr. Russell. 

1432 C0M]vnjNiST espionage 

Mr. Russell. Wliile you were employed by the State Department, 
dill you ever tuin over any documents of a restricted nature to Whit- 
taker Chambers ? 

Mr. Wadi-IvIcii. I refuse to answer (hat question ou the ground that 
the answer niiglit incriminate me. 

Mr. KussELL. While you were employed by the State Department, 
did you ever turn over any documents to Al<::er Hiss, eitlier directly 
or indii-ectly, whether personally, or through any other person? 

Mr. WAUi.KKiiT. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
the answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. EussKij.. Have you ever known an individual v.ho used (he 
name "Carl"' and no other name? 

Mr. AVadliucii. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
the answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. Russell. Do you know (Jeorge Crosley, or auyone by that name. 

Mr. Wadi-eioii. I refuse to answer that (question on the ground 
that the answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. Raxkix. The answer could not incriminate you unless you are 
guilty of a crime, could it, Mr. AVadleigh ? 

Mr. AVadleigh. I am not an expert in the law, sir. 

INIr. Raxkix. I am, and I will say to you that ludess you are guilty 
of a crime your answer to those questions could not incriminate you. 

Mr. ^NlrxDT. Mi-. Riissell. 

INIr. Russell. Mr. AVadleigh, you have consulted an attorney, have 
you not ? 

^Ir. AA^AnLEKiH. I have consulted an attorney, but I am not now 
re]iT"esented by one. 

]Mr. Russell. Do you desire counsel? 

jNfr. AA^ADLEioir. I would have preferred to come here with counsel. 

Mr. MuxDT. AAliy couldn't you bring counsel with you? 

Mr. AVADLEKiu. in consult a( ion with my attorney this morning it 
was mutually agreed that he would lU) longer rejiresent me. 

Mr. ]\ruNDT. AVhat was the name of that attorney? 

Mr. AA^ADLEiGii. Herman (Jreenberg. 

Mr. MuxDT. Of what fiiiin? 

Mr. AA'adlekul Greenberg 

]\Ir. Russell. Forer and Rein. 

i\Ir. AA^ADLEiGir. Forer and Rein, that is cori-ect. 

Mr. ]NruxnT. The Chair has a question of our committee counsel 
at this stage. Has Mr. Greenberg, or any member of his linn, the firm 
of Greenberg, Forer, and Rein, ai)peare(l befoi'e a committee previously 
to testify or support the testimony of a witness? 

Mr. Russell. They have, 

IVfr. MuxnT. AAHio? 

Mr. Russell. Geihart Eisler and numerous subjects who were men- 
tio7ied during the course of the Bentley hearings. 

Mr. MuxDT. The same fii-m has represented those witnesses as the 
one consulted by Mr. AVadleigh ? 

]\Ir. Russell. That is true. 

Mr. MuNDT. Proceed witli your questioning. 

INIr. Raxkix. Now, Mr. Chairman. I think the record ought to show 
at this ]ioint that those witnesses you referred to who were found to 
be members of the Communist Party. 

Mr. MuNDT. That is correct. 


Go ahead, Mr. Russell. 

Mr. Russell. Mr. Wadleigh, are you now, or have you ever been, 
n member of the Communist Party of the United States? 

Mr. Wadleigh. No, sir. 

Mr. Russell. Have you ever filed application to become a member 
of the Communist Party of the United States ? 

Mr. Wadleigli. No, sir. 

Mr. Russell. Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party 
of any other country ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. No, sir. 

Mr. Russell. Did you ever file application to become a member of 
the Communist Party of any other country ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. No, sir. 

Mr. Russell. Mr. Wadleigh, have you ever acted as an informant 
for any agencies of the Federal Government ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I have been interrogated by the FBI. 

Mr. Russell. Did you cooperate with that organization ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I tried to, to the best of my ability. 

Mr. Russell. Mr. Wadleigh, a serious charge has been made against 
you, and I ask at this time that Mr. Wadleigh be made acquainted 
with the nature of that charge. 

Mr. MuNDT. The Chair will ask Mr. Nixon to read into the record 
at this time the charges which have been made against Mr. Wadleigh 
on sworn testimony before our committee. 

Mr. Nixon. I shall read from the record of a meeting of a sub- 
committee of this committee, which heard Mr. Chambers on Monday 
of this week in New York City, consisting of Mr. McDowell as chair- 
man and myself as a member. The question was by Mr. Nixon 
[reading] : 

Mr. Chambers, I hand you herewith photographic copies of documents made 
from the microfilm which you submitted to the committee in response to a 
subpena the committee served upon you. 

Mr. Chambers. Yes, sir. 

and then in parentheses : 

(Mr. Chambers examined the document.) 

The documents you are now examining are all documents from the State 
Department, they bear the stamp "State Department, Assistant Secretary of 

Mr. Chambers. Yes. I should thinli from the nature of these documents 
which I have examined they were turned over to me by Alger Hiss, and I should 
make the point right here, perhaps, that the same procedure that I have de- 
scribed above in the case of other photographers was also followed by Alger Hiss, 
in addition to the typed documents. There was, however, another active source 
in the State Department, Mr. Julian Wadleigh, who was in the Trade Agreements 
Division of the State Department and it is possible some of these documents were 
from him. 

Mr. NixoN. Was this a source of contact? 

Mr. Chambers. Yes. 

Additional testimony in regard to Mr. Wadleigh : 

Mr. Stripling. In addition to the individuals I have named, what individuals 
in the Government did turn over documents to you? 
Mr. Chambers. Julian Wadleigh. 

and further on in the testimony : 

Mr. Stripling. When you spoke to Adolph Berle, did you mention Julian 

Mr. Chambers. Yes. 


Now. Afr. TYadlci^li. as you can of coiirso appreciate the testimony 
Avliich Mr. Cliainlters has g:\\en involves quite serious charges. Tlie 
document whicli Mr. Russell showed to you and requested you to 
identify was one of the docuuients Avhich was found to be on micro- 
film which Mr. Chambers had in his possession. The microfilm was 
an original copy of the documents which were taken from State De- 
partment files in an unauthorized manner, and turned over to Mr. 

Now, in view of that, and in view of your apparent desire to co- 
opeiate with the investigative agencies of the (Jovernment in unravel- 
ing this case, I wonder if you would now again look at the document 
which Mr. Russell presented to you [ handing document to the witness]. 

Mr. ^^^\nL^.I(;^. I look at this document again at the conunittee's 
request. 1 am not prepared to change my testimony. I might sug- 
gest, however, that you inquire of the State Dei)artment as to Avhether 
this i)articular document was shown to me. I don't know whether 
they will })e able to answer that question or not, but 3'ou might care 
to ask them, whetlier I had access to this document. 

Mr. MxTXDT. You said you are now prepared to change your testi- 
mony, but you didn't indicate what the change was going to be. 

Mr. WAnYKioii. No; I didn't. 

INfr. MuxDT. Did you say you are not prepared to change it? 

Mr. AVadletgh. I am not prei)ared to change it. 

Mr. MuNUT. I am sorry; I misunderstood you, sir. 

Mr. Wadleigh. T am not prepaied to change it. 

Mr. MuNDT. All right; you are not prepared to change your 

Mr. RrssEix. Mr. Wadleigh. the remaining portion of the document 
to which the first document refers is 10 pages long. 

Mr. Waoleigh. Is that so? 

Mr. RrrssEiJ.. I wonder whether you could glance through this and 
tell whether or not you had ever seen such a document. 

Mr. A\'AnLKiGii. If tlie committee insists I will glance through the 
remaining IG pages, but I do so only at the committee's insistence. 
Is this the same document? 

Ml-. RrssEET,. This document pertains to that document as well. 

Ml-. AVadleigii. It is a diil'ereiit document? 

Mr. Russell. That is right. 

(Witness examines document.) 

Mr. Ri'ssELT,. Would you state whether or not you have ever seen that 
document in State Dej)aitment Hies or elsewhere? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I refuse to answer that question on the gronnd that 
the answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. Nixox. Mr. Wadleigh. Mill you state for the record that you 
did not turn over that document, or any other document to Mr. 

Mr. Wadletgh. I refuse to answer that question on the ground 
that the answer might incriminate me. 

^fr. Russell. Mr. Wadleigh, you studied in Germany, did vou not? 

Mr. Wadleigit. I studied in Germany in 1929. 

Mr. IvussKLL. Do you sjjeak German? 

Mr. Wadleigh. That was 3 years, 8 or 4 years before the Nazis came 
into power. 

Mr. Russell. Do you speak German ? 


Mr. Wadleigh. My German is not very good. 

Mr. Russell. Can you write it ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Not good German. 

Mr. Russell. Did you ever write any documents in German or have 
them written in the German language while you were employed in the 
State Department ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
the answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. Russell. Did you ever translate any documents into the Ger- 
man language while employed in the State Department ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Translating was not part of my duties. 

Mr. INIuNDT. You have not answered the question. The Chair wants 
the question either answered specifically or evaded specifically. 

Mr. Wadleigh. I have no recollection of having translated any 
documents into German. In fact, my German is not good enough. 

Mr. Mundt. Thank you. 

Mr. Nixon. Mr. Wadleigh, did you indicate that Mr, Hawkins was 
your Chief in the Trade Agreements Division ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I don't remember whether I indicated that, but it 
is a matter of public record that he was. 

Mr. Nixon. Your answer is that he was ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. That is correct. 

Mr. Nixon. Do you know Mr. Hawkins? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Nixon. In other words, you are not refusing to answer the ques- 
tion as to whether you know Mr. Hawkins on the ground that it would 
incriminate you ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Mr. Hawkins was my immediate superior for sev- 
eral years. 

Mr. Nixon. Mr. Hiss was in the State Department at the same time 
you were, was he not ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I believe that is a matter of public record when Mr. 
Hiss was in the State Department, I am prepared to answer the ques- 
tions as to when I was in the State Department, and who were my 

Mr. Nixon. But in the case of Mr. Hiss, you say you refuse to 
answer on the ground that it would incriminate you ? 

Mr, Wadleigh, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Nixon. Mr. Wadleigh, there is a rather serious imiDlication in- 
volved in your answers which I think you should be apprised of be- 
fore you give additional answers of this type, and that is this: The 
answer, "I must refuse to answer on the ground that I would incrimi- 
nate myself," you were instructed I)ef ore we went into public session, 
can only be given, and a constitutional privilege used, where a crime 
would be involved in the event that the answer were given either in 
the negative, in the affirmative, or otherwise. 

Now, in this case, the crime that is charged, or the offense which 
has been charged by Mr. Chambers, as of course is indicative from 
this testimony to us, was that you, in 1938 and 1937 turned over to 
him at the time that he was a Soviet espionage agent, confidential 
Government information. 

I should like to point out that that alleged offense, if committed then, 
and not repeated after that time, would now be outlawed by the 


statute of limitations, and if you were to go on tlie stand and admit to 
that, that you did tuin oxer that information, you could not possibly 
incriminate yoin-self. 

Now, by your rcfusin*: t«) answer thr questions as to whether you 
know Mr. Chambers and whether you turned over the documents on 
the ground of self-incrimination, tlie only imi)lication which can be 
drawn from your answer is that this alleged course of conduct con- 
tinued alter r.).")S. and through V.^MK because only in that case could 
you be gu'ilty of self-incrimination. 

I now ask you, in the light of this analysis, and this is not a legal 
analysis, 1 might say, it is something which any layman can under- 
stand — in the light, of this analysis, did you, in 10:^9, turn over any 
confidential information to an unauthorized person? 

Mr. Wai)ij:i(;ii. In answer to that question, I would like to point 
out that in consultation with attorneys whom 1 hurriedly consulted 
when I received a subpena to appear before the grand jury, I was in- 
fornuHlthat this matter of the statute of limitations is not ironclad; 
that there may be loopholes, and they did not have time to investigate 
it, l)Ut they felt that it coidd not be relied upon. 

Mr. Nixox. The loophole they were referring to, Mr. Wadleigh, was 
the one that I just gave to you, and that is that the conspiracy 

Mr. Waolktoti. No, sir; it is not. 

Mr. Nixox. Just a moment; that is, that the conspiracy continued 
beyond 1938. Now, if the conspiracy did not contiime beyond 1938. 
1 think in all fairness to yourself you shoidd so indicate to the com- 

Mr. AVadleigii. It was not my understanding that tliat was the loop- 

Mr. Nixox. Well, can we gather, then, from your testimony here 
today that there is a possibility, as far as you wei-i> concerned, you had 
no part in such a conspiracy after 1938? 

Mr. Wadleigh. If I were to answer that question in the aflirmative, 
I woidd be implying that T did take part in a conspiracy prior to 1938. 
I am making no such admission. 

Ml-. Nixox. Well, did you take part in such a conspiracy prior to 

Mr. AVAnrEicH. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
the answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. MuxDT. Just what kind of admi.ssion do you think that is going 
to be considered by the American public? 

Ml-. Wai)Ij:igii. I will not speculate on what interpretations, false or 
otherwise, might be placed upon my slatenieiits. 1 let the statements 

Mr. MiXDT. Very well. 

Mr. Nixox. Mr. lvus>^ell. wotild you kindly sliow the witness this 
document | handing document to the witness] ? 

Mr. Wadleigh, if 3'ou Avill examine that document which is hand- 
written, would you indicate to ilu' committee whether or not that is 
in your handwriting? 

^U: W.MH.Kioii. May 1 a>k liisL, what is the date of II1..1 docunienli 

Mr. Raxkix. That has nothing to do with it. 

Mr. MuxDT, Answer the question first, then you may ask u.lditionaF. 


Mr. Wadleigii. I don't recognize it as my handwriting, but it is 
about the size of my handwriting, but I don't think that 

Mr. Nixon. Mr. Witness 

Mr. Wadleigii. It doesn't look to me like my handwriting. 

Mr. Nixon. Mr. Wadleigh, it would be of assistance to the commit- 
tee if you would at this time possibly give us a handwriting specimen. 
Obviously we can get one from some other source. 

Mr. Wadleigii. You certainly can. 

Mr. Nixon. Would you kindly do that? That would be the best 
evidence in this case, since you are not s^ire whether it is or is not. 

Mr. Wadleigii. I would like to have an opportunity, if I may, to 
examine that at some time when it would be easier for me. 

]\Ir. Nixon. You certainly ma}^ have. We are simply attempting 
to get at the bottom of this. 

Mr. Rankin. If he is going to come here and refuse to answer ques- 
tions, the committee owes him no obligation to help him find storm 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Rankin, just a moment. 

Mr. Wadleigii. Well, in view of the fact that I am uncertain — let 
me eliminate those words. I take that back. 

Mr. MuNDT. Each member of the committee speaks for himself, 
and noiie speaks for the majority. No decisions have been made, so 
3^ou may proceed to answer. 

Mr. Wadleigii. Yes. I would like, if I may, to take back every- 
thing I said about that document, and simply say that I refuse to 
answer the question on the ground that the answer might incriminate 
me. But 1 will be glad to supply the committee with a specimen of 
my handwriting. 

Mr. ]MuNDT. You will give the committee a specimen of your 

Mr. Wadleigii. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MuNDT. You may ])roceed Avith that. 

Mr. Nixon. If you will give us five signatures, Mr. Wadleigh, it will 
assist us. 

INIr. Wadleigh. Then this specimen is not what you wish? 

jMf. KrSSELL. No. 

Mr. Wadleigii. Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement on this 
document ^ 

Mr. MuNDT. May I ask, have you finished writing? 

Mr. Wadleigii. Well, I would like to make this statement : That 
since I have been led to depart from my previous intention, on advice 
of counsel, of refusing to answer questions of tliis nature, I wish now 
to say that I have not seen that dDcument. I have never seen it and 
I did not write it. It was not my intention to give any such answers 
but since I have been led to discuss the document I will make an 
exception in this one case. 

Mr. MuNDT. May the Chair say that in all events you have supplied 
a specimen of your handwriting and a handwriting expert can deter- 
mine that very delinitely, so they will be able to support your position 
in that, if it is correct. 

Mr. Wadleigii. That I believe to be so. 

ISIr. jNIltndt. As the Chair asked, lias he supplied the handwriting 
s])cciinan ;' 


Ml-. KrssKix. Xo. I wanted to mnlvP sure tliis Avas the document 
wliicli lie says he did not write. 

Mr. MuNDT. I see. Very well. 

Mr. RussF.LL. You are not referring to the previous documents 
which wp showed you? 

Mr. AN'ADM'.icir. No; I was not referrinpf to those documents. 

Mr. MuNDT. You are referring to the document, as the Chair takes 
it. whicli you have just written in your own handwritin<:; after having 
the contents dictated hy Mr. Kussell, our counsel, is that correct? 

Ml'. "\V.\i)LKi(iir. I haven't finished this. Do you want me to linish it? 

Mr. Mdxdt. All right, finish it up and then sign your name at tlie 

Mv. "\V.\nLEi(iii. Might T give it to the committee after the hearing 
is terminated ? It is a little difficult. 

Mr. MuxDT. "We would like to have you finish it now and have the 
matter disposed of. 

Ml". WAi;LEKiii. You Want to have me finish it now? 

Mr. MuNDT. Yes: go right ahead. 

Ml-. AVadleigh. Yes; all right. 

Ml'. MrxDT. "Will you put five signatures of your name on there? 

JNIr. AVadleigii. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MuNDT. All right, Mr. Russell, you may proceed with your 
questions. Have you further questions? 

Mr. RussELX,. One further question. 

Mr. ]MuNDT. Proceed. 

Mr, Ri ssEix. Have you ever been a member of an organized group 
whose jmrpose was to furnish information to a foreign power? 

Mr. WAin.Eicn. T refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
the answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. Ri'ssELE, That is all the questions I have. Mr. Chairman. 

^Tr. MiTNDT. Mr. AA'^adleigh, the Chair would like to refer for a 
moment to the statement you made earlier that in consultation this 
morning with IMr. Greenberg it was mutually agi'eed that lie would 
not rej^resent you at these hearings. I thiidc I have quoted you 
correctly, have I not ? 

INIr. AVAnLEicir. That is correct. 

]Mr. ^IixDT. I would like to ask you whether you were contacted 
by any third party, any third party at all, suggesting to you that 
you teiminate your connections with Mr. Greenberg in connection 
with this case? 

Mr. AA'adeeigii. Xobody made any such suggestion to me. 

Mr. MuNDT. Was the termination of your consultation with ^fr. 
Greeiilicrg as a result of your suggestion or his? 

Mr. A\'Ai)EEi(;n. That is a matter which devel()i)ed in discussions 
between counsel and client, sir. 

^Ir. Ml NDT. You do not care to inform the committee? 

Mi-. AA'aueeigii. I understand that it is my right not to divulge 
what took place in such consultations. 

Mr. Ml xi>T. You do iu>t lune to, I am simply asking you whether 
you cared to give that information to the connnittee, or not. You are 
not r('(|uired to do so. 

Mr. AVadleigii. I would prefer not to do so without consulting Mr. 
Greenberg fii-st. 


Mr. MuNDT. Did j'ou terminate your employment with the Govern- 
ment at your request or at the request of the Government ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. You mean the United States Government? 

Mr. MuNDT. That is correct, 

Mr. Wadleigh. At my request. I would like to amplify that. 

Mr. MuxDT. I think you testified earlier that you also terminated 
your employment with the Italian Government on December 7, of 
this week and that that was at your request? 

Mr. Wadleigh. At my request. 

Mr. MuNDT. Did you want to amplify your statement? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I just wanted to say that my reason for terminating 
my employment with the United States Government was that I re- 
ceived an offer for a position with UNRRA. 

Mr, MuNDT. Who made that offer to you ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. My superior in UNRRA was Mr. Cairns and na- 
turally when you receive an offer of employment you receive it from 
the person who is going to be your immediate superior. 

Mr. MuNDT. That came from Mr. Cairns? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Cairns, 

Mr. MuisTDT. Will you spell it, please, and identify him for us? 

Mr. Wadleigh. C-a-i-r-n-s. 

Mr. MuNDT. All right, Mr. McDowell. 

Mr. IMcDowELL. Not at this moment, 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr, Rankin, 

Mr, Rankin. Mr. Wadleigh, have you any military record? 

Mr. Wadleigh. No, sir, 

Mr. Rankin. You were not in this war at all ? 

Mr. AVadleigh. I was in the theater of war in a civilian suit, sir. 

Mr. Rankin. I see, that is all right. What time did you quit the 
State Department i 

Mr. Wadleigh. I was transferred from the State Department to 
FEA as the result of a merger — well, I was transferred to FEA. I 
do not need to go into the details unless you insist upon it. That was 
in 1943. 

Mr. Rankin. 1943 ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Rankin. That was 2 years after Pearl Harbor, You refused 
To answer whether or not you were turning over secret documents to 
foreign agents during that time, on the ground that your answer 
might incriminate you. That is right, isn't it? 

Mr, Wadleigh, That's right, 

Mr, Rankin. If your answer was "No," if you were not turning 
over these documents at the time our boys were dying by the thou- 
sands on every battlefront in the world, your answer would be "No," 

Mr. Wadleigh. My answer to that question is on advice of counsel, 

Mr. Rankin. I understand. It is about time that the Government 
took some steps to disbar some counsel. We have had this inter- 
ference before. 

In other words, if you were not guilty of giving out these secret 
documents during those trying and dangerous times, your answer 
would be "No." Now, the only thing that could happen to you if 

80408—48 — pt. 2—^5 


YOU answered "No" now would be that if you were handing those docu- 
ments out you coukl be convicted of perjury; tliat is right, isn't it ^ 

Mr. A\'Ai)M:i(iii. I was advised by counsel not to answer any ques- 
tions in regard to such matters, inespective of the date. If I start 
discriminating as to dates then that will get me involved in the same 
fix tliat I irot involved in oxer the handwriting. 

Mr. Kankix. It might get you invohed in moiv than that, if you 
told us the truth. A man of yoiir age sporting around Europe in 
civilian clothes certainly ought not to object to telling us whether or 
not he was giving out secret docunicnts that wcic aiding our enemies 
and killing American boys during terrible years. That's all I 
have to .say. 

Mr. MuxDT. l\Ii-. Xixon. 

Afr. Xixox. Mr. Wadleigh. when you were witli the Division of 
Traile Agreements were you there as an economists 

Mr. ^^'ADLl•:IGII. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Nixox. Just briefly, what were your ruiutions as an economist 
in that Division ? 

Mr. Waolkk;!!. I was engaged in work conncctfd witli the nego- 
tiation of trade agreenuuits between the United States and foreign 

Mr. Ntxox. "Which specific foreign countries would you say that 
the greater volume of your work was with during that jx'riod S 

Mr. Wadlkigh. Turkey, France, Belgium. IVlay I say in explana- 
tion there that in referring to France and Belgium I am not referring 
to the first agreement with Franc(> oi- the first agreement with Belgium. 
I liad not i)articipated directly in that. 

There was work being done just before the war broke out in Europe 
on a new agi'eement witli France and on a new agi-eement with Belgium. 
That wr)rk was interruj)ted. 

Another part of my functions which you may be interested in was 
general work on quotas and exchange controls in their bearing on 
United States trade agreements. 

Mr. Xixox. When you were the UX'RRA would yoti briefly de- 
scribe what your specific functions were S You were with UNKKA 
in the United States, I uiulerstand. 

Mr. WADLf'.ir.H. That is correct. I worked mainlv on evaluating the 
requirements of those counti'ies which received food from UXKRA. 

Mr. X'lxox. "Which specific countries did you work on at that time, 
Mr. Wadleigh S 

Mr. AVadli:i<;ii. All of them. 

Mr. Xixox. All of the countries which 

Mr. "Wadlkigh. All of the countries that received food from 

Mr. X'lxox. You did not spend more or less time on one country 
than another? I think we all realize that the functions within a 
department are 

Mv. "Wadlki(;h. My functions were not limited geographically. 

Mr. Xixox. You mean, in other words, you spent a relatively equal 
amount of time on all the countries? 

Mr. "Waulkujh. That is correct. 

Mr. Nixon. Your mission to Italy was for the State Department; is 
that the case? 


Mr. Wadleigh. That is correct, although the mission itself was 
transferred to FEA during the course of the time that I was over 
in Italy. 

Mr. Nixon. Would you describe briefly the purpose of that mission 
and your function ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. The purpose of the mission was to advise the — 
well, no, I beg your pardon. I started out on the wrong track here. 
The mission was a part of the Allied Control Commission which waa 
administering liberated Italian territory. 

Mr. Nixon. Mr. Hiss was never there working with you in the same 
department in the State Department ; is that the case i 

Mr. Wadleigh. Mr. Hiss, I understand, was in the — well, I knew it 
at the time also — was in Mr. Sayre's office. He was not in the Trade 
Agreements Division. 

Mr. Nixon. Did you indicate in executive session you were in some 
way, as I thought, attached to Mr. Sayre's office as well ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. No. 

Mr. NixON. You brought his name in in some connection; do you 
recall what it was ? 

]Mr. Wadleigh. Yes; simply in this connection, that the Trade 
Agreements Division was under the general supervision of Mr. Sayre 
but it was not a part of his office. 

Mr. NixoN. I see. 

Mr. Wadleigh. That is, at the time when I entered it had previously 
been a part of his office, but I entered the State Department in March 
1936. At that time the Trade Agreements Division was a division sub- 
ject to the general supervision of Mr. Sayre but was not a part of his 

Mr. NixoN. Did vou have any negotiations with Mr. Sayre's office 
at all i 

Mr. Wadleigh. I occasionally sat in his office on conferences, not 
very often. I wasn't highly enough placed to be there very frequently. 

Mr. Nixon. Mr. Hiss was his asisstant. Did Mr. Hiss sit in on those 
conferences as well ^ 

Mr. Wadleigh. I don't recall at this time who sat in on any par- 
ticular conferences that took place more than 10 years ago. 

Mr. Nixon. I understand, but I am just asking if Mr. Hiss sat in on 
any conferences. 

^Ir. AVadleigh. He might have. 

Mr. Nixox. Do you know Mr. Hiss, then ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I saw Mr. Hiss during the course of my work in the 
State Department. 

Mr. Nixon. Did you ever turn oyer any documents to Mr. Hiss from 
the trade-agreements department in which you were employed ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I have no such recollection. 

Mr. Nixon. Your testimony is that you do not recall having done 

Mr. Wadleigh. Well, the nature of my duties was such that I might 
easily have taken something to him in the course of my official duties. 
I do not recall any specific occasion on which I did so. 

Mr. Nixon. Have you been in Mr. and Mrs. Hiss' home ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
the answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. Nixon. Do you know Mrs. Hiss? 


Mr. WAm.KTnii. I refuse to iinswt>r that question on the groinul that 
the answer mi^lit incriminate me. 

Mr. Nixon. Do you know Donald Hiss? 

Mr. Wadlkigh. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
the answer mi<j:ht incriminate me. 

Mr. Nixon. I have no further questions. 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Hehert. 

Mr. IIkukkt. Mi-. Wadlei«rh, T want to make my i)<>sition very cMear 
and jrive you anotiier (>j)i)oil unity that I attempted to <jjive you in 
executive session. My position. 1 thiidv. is well known (»n this com- 
mittee tliat I object to any jMihlic lu'arinjzs being held until a man 
has had an oj)p()i'tunity in exi'cutive session to deuionsti-ate his desire 
to cooperate. Also, we sliould attemi)t in executive session to give 
them an opportunity to prove to this conmiittee that he is innocent of 
the cliarges brought against him. 

In other words, my |)()sition is this — and T maintained it thi'ougli- 
out — that I object to any individual's name being mentioned in i)ui)lic 
Until tliat individual has the opportunity to protect himself and to 
deny the charges before this connnittee in executive session, at which 
time the connnittee can then determine^ whetliei- it wants (o make it 
public, or not. 

Yours is one of the most outstanding cases of that procedure, so far 
as I am concerned. Your name up to this moment has been protected 
and not released by tliis committee in any maiinei-. shape, or form. 
You api)eare(l before the connnittee this morning and were given 
every opjx)rtunity to cooperate and deny each charge. You refused 
to cooperate. You refused not only to cooperate in giving us the 
information, but you refused the opportunity of making a flat denial 
of the chai'ges that were made against you. I inuneilialely conseiUed 
with the rest of the committee to have it in public, then it could be 
right out in the open after you had been given an opportunity. 

Now you say you consulted counsel — and 1 am trying to be as fair 
to you as I can — and you are answering some of these (|uestions on 
advice of counsel, refusing to answer on the grounds that it might 
inci'iminate or degrade you; is that correct ? 

Mr. "Wadletoti. That is correct. T was advised by counsel not to 
answer any ([uestion which might have any connection, howe\er re- 
mote, with the accusations that have been made against me by Mr. 

Mr. Hkbp.RT. And that is the sole reason that you are standing on 
those constitutional rights^ 

Mr. Wadleigh. I was advised so to do by counsel. I am not an 
expert in the law myself, and T thought it in my interest to follow 
the advice of counsel. 

Mr. Hkbekt. If you were left on your own you would freely admit 
or di.scuss these matters? 

Mr. Wadlkioii. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
tlie answei- might incriminate me. 

Mr. IIkmkim. 1 am giving you every oppoit unity. Mr. "Wadleigh. 
You are the individual, sii-. who makes up his mind whether you want 
to take the advice of coinisel. and hide behind the shield of your 
constitutional rights, which I do not challenge, oi- else to follow your 
own good judgment of a clear conscience and merely and simply deny 
the charges and the allegations which have been made against you. 


Between those two you choose to follow the advice of counsel? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I follow advice of counsel. 

Mr. Hebert. That is tantamount to what you would have us believe 
is a clear conscience and innocence of any charges made against you? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Is that your inference? 

Mr. Hebert. How is that ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Is that your inference? 

Mr. Hebert. That certainl}^ is what I accept it to be. 

Mr. Wadleigh. Thank you. 

Mr. Hebert. Because if I was in your position, sir, I would be most 
eager to deny everything flatly. I would be most eager to clear myself, 
not only from the public mind 

Mr. Rankin. If you are able to. 

Mr. Hebert. That is what I mean, if I was able to. Because you 
must keep in mind, and every other witness must keep it in mind, 
that nothing has been proved against you except the statement of 
another individual. It is your word against his word, and you are 
just as rightful to deny what he has said, but always keeping in mind 
that if you deny and it is later proved that you were lying, then you 
are subject to perjury. So I can only draw one inference. 

Now, is this the first time that you have stood on those constitutional 
rights in discussing these matter or in answ^ering the questions which 
have been directed to you by this committee? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Sir, the only previous occasion that I have had 
the opportunity to choose whether or not to stand on that right was in 
my testimony to the grand jury yesterday, 

Mr. Hebert. Let me interrupt. I am not trying to probe into the 
grand jury. 

Mr. Wadleigh. And therefore — if I may finish — I believe it would 
be inappropriate for me to answer that question. 

Mr. Hebert. No; don't do that. Did you ever discuss these matters 
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I was interrogated by the Bureau. 

Mr. Hebert. Did you tell them that you wouldn't answ^er the ques- 
tions we have now propounded to you? 

Mr. W^adleigh. Well 

Mr. Hebert. Now, that is not a secret. I don't want to know about 
the grand jury, but I want to know about the FBI. Wliat did you tell 

Mr. Wadleigh. I was informed by the FBI that the statements that 
I made to them were not to be divulged. At least that was my 

Mr. Hebert. Well, I will tell yOu now that thej^ can be divulged- 
There is no law which says you can't tell us what you told the FBI. 
Now. what did you tell the FBI ? You have another chance. 

Mr. Wadleigh. Well, I would be glad to tell you what I told the 
FBI if I have the consent of the FBI, or after consulting counsel. 

•May I have the opportunity to consult counsel before I make that 
decision ? 

Mr. Hebert. Well, you have no more counsel. You just mutually 
ended that agreement. 

Mr. Wadleigh. I will have to find another one. 

Mr. Hebert. You have to find another counsel. 

Mr. Wadleigh. That is right. 

1444 com:mijnist espionage 

]\rr. Hkrert. Xow, in that connection you went to a Mr. Greenberg, 
I niidorstand. 

Mr. Wadlkigh. That's right. 

Mr. Hkbkrt. Had you known Mr. Greenberg before you went to 
him ? 

Ml'. Wadi-f.igii. No, sir. 

Mr. IIkrkht. Who recomniendod you to Mr. Greenberg? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Mr. Joseph Nellis. 

IVfi-. IIkbkrt. Mr. whom? 

IVfi-. "Wahleigh. Mr. Josopli Nellis. 

INfr. Hebert. N-e-1-l-i-s? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Tliat's right. 

Mv. IIebert. Who is Mr. Joseph Nellis? 

Mr. Wadleigh. He is a lawyer in Washington wliom T know per- 

Mr. Hebert. How long had you known Mr. Nellis? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Foi- a couple of years. 

Mr. Hebert. And when did you go to IVfr. Nellis? 

Mr. Wadleigh. When I received a subpena from the committee — 
I mean, from the grand jury. 

Mr. Hebert. INIr. Nellis could have advised you to stand on your 
constitutional rights, couldn't he? He is a lawyer. I am sure he is 
as good a lawyer as Mr. Greenberg; he knows the law. 

Mr. Wadleigh. IMr. Nellis told me that Mr. Greenberg was the right 
man for me. 

]\Ir. Hebert. Did he tell you why he was the right man ? 

IVIr. Wadleigh. I presume he did it for professional reasons. 

Mr. Hebert. Did he tell you that Mr. Greenberg's firm had repre- 
sented Gei-hart Eisler and other well known Communists, and is quite 
expert in representing Communists? Did he tell you that? 

Mr. Wadleigh. He told me that Mr. Greenberg has represented 
persons appearing before this committee. 

Mr. Hebert. Didn't it seem strange to you that Mr. Nellis would 
send you to a firm whose reputation is well known for representing 

Mr. Wadleigh. I did not know, sir, that the political views of a per- 
son represented by an attorney are in any way to be attributed to the 
attorney who represents him. 

Mr. Hebp:rt. You are getting into a nice field now, Mr. Wadleigh, 
and you have opened the door. 

Mr. Wadleigh. I assumed 

Mr. Hf:bert. You opened the door. You made the statement now 
that you didn't think a person's political views had anything to do 
with his ]irofessional rating, and I certainly agree with you. 

Mr. Wadleigh. No, sir; I did not say that. 

Mr. Hebert. AVell, what did you say? Say it again. 

Mr, Wadleigh. I said that the views of the lawyer and the views 
of the client are not necessarily identical, and in this case it is rriy 
understanding that they are very definitely not identical, in the E'isler 
case that you referred to. 

Mr. Hp:bert. You used the expression which is a well known Coni- 
inunist line. 

Mr. Wadleigh. I didn't know that, sir. 


Mr. Hebert. Well, you want to withdraw that, then, don't you ; I 
mean as to political views? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Well, I don't know what expression you are re- 
ferring to. 

Mr. Hebert. I am referring to your expression of political views as 
nobody else's business, in other words, to paraphrase what you said. 

Mr. Wadleigh. That is pure Americanism, sir. 

Mr. Hebert. I am not disputing what it is ; I merely said that ex- 
pression was a typical Communist answer up until these recent hear- 
ings. Now they stand on their constitutional rights. Before they 
refused to answer the question, and when they found out they could 
be cited for contempt and convicted of it, they changed their tune. 

Mr. Wadleigh. All I am saying is that it was my understanding that 
Mr. Greenberg — and it is still my understanding and my conviction — 
that Mr. Greenberg's views are not identical with those of certain 
persons whom he has represented. 

Mr. Hebert, That is what I am trying to point out ; that the same 
procedure is the well-known line of communism. You deny that you 
are a Communist? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hebert. You never have been a Communist ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. That is correct. 

Mr. Hebert. Have you ever learned the Communist theory of gov- 
ernment — I shouldn't ask you that ; I am getting along political lines 

Mr. Wadleigh. Am I required to go into a political catechism? 

Mr. Hebert. I don't want to discuss it with you, because I am 
afraid we would never get together. 

Now, let me understand about the advice of counsel, refusing to 
answer on constitutional grounds. 

You went to see Mr. Greenberg before you appeared before the 
grand jury in New York, I presume? 

Mr. Wadleigh. That is correct. 

Mr. Hebert. Was that before you talked with the FBI ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. No. 

Mr. Hebert. And, of course, it was not before you appeared before 
this committee? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Correct. Wait a minute. Wliat was that ques- 
tion ^ 

Mr. Hebert. It was before you appeared before this committee? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Yes; I saw them this morning before I appeared 
before the committee. 

JNIr. Hebert. So now we have a conflict of advice — I am leaving 
the grand jury out — he advised you not to talk to this committee and 
to stand on your constitutional rights, but did not advise you to 
talk to the FBI ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I had already spoken to the FBI. 

Mr. Hebert. You just a minute ago said you saw counsel before 
you saw any of the three agencies. 

Mr. MuNDT. No; you misunderstood. 

Mr. Wadleigh. You misunderstood me, sir. 

Mr. Hebert. All right. I want the record to show it correctly. 

Mr. Wadleigh. I went to counsel after I received the subpena from 
the grand jury. I had previously spoken to the FBI. 


Mr. Hkbkkt. Now. when did the FBI talk to you? 

Mr. Wadlkicii. Deceinher (1. 

Mr. Hkheht. Was that the first time the FBI talked to you? 

Mr. W.vnLEiGir. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hkiu-.kt. You had never been in contact with the FBI before 
December C). VMSi 

Mr. Waulkich. No, sir. 

Ml'. Hkiucut. You didn't know any agents of the FBI before De- 
cember ('• ? 

Mr. Wai)i,i:i(;ii. No, sir. 

Mr. Hkkekt. And had never been in contact with them? 

Mr. Wadleigii. No, sir. 

Mr. Hebekt. And then you were under no compunctions of advice 
of counsel wheji you first went to the FBI i 

Mr. Wadlekhi. That is correct. 

Mr. IIeheht. And you freely discussed the matter with them; is 
that correct i 

Mr. WADLj'ncJir. I would like to have advice of counsel before I say 
anything here about my discussions with the FBI. 

Mr. PIehert. Now, ^Ir. Wadleigh, just again for the sake of the 
record, to put you on record and to give you another opportunity to 
clear your own skirts, have you at any time engaged in anything 
which would smack of espionage against the United States Govern- 
ment ? 

Mr. WAnLEioir. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
the answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. Hehert. You refuse to make a flat denial that you are innocent 
of that cluirge, and you have the opportunity now? 

Mr. Wauleigh. I refuse to answer the question on the ground that 
the answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. Hebert. That is all. 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Vail. 

Mr. Vail. Mr. Wadleigh, during the period of your em]:)loyment 
with the State Department, were you aware of any instance in which 
another employee of the Department delivered documents belonging 
to the State Department to any outside person? 

Mr. Wadlekml. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
the answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. Vail. No further questions. 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. Wadleigh, the Chair would like to ask a question 
or two. 

Have you ever seen or met Miss Elizabeth Bentley? 

Mr. AVadleigii. I refuse to answer that question on the ground 
that the answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. MuNDT. I think you will understand, Mr. Wadleigh, that you 
have been charged with very serious crimes involving disloyalty to 
your country. You are one of three men now under suspicion, as the 
residt of sworn testimony taken under oath, and an accninuhition of 
circumstantial evidence. We have brought you before the comiuiltee 
in an efi'ort to give you an opportunity to deny those charges, if 5'ou 
are innocent, and in an effort to establish proof of your involvement 
if you are guilty. 


It seems to me that as a young man with average intelligence, you 
must realize you have contributed nothing this morning which 
would to refute the charges against you, or which would tend to 
establish your innocence, if you are innocent of the charges made, and 
of the evidence which has been given. 

I dislike to see any injury brought to anyone who is innocent, cer- 
tainly, so I want to give you another and final chance, following the 
analysis which I have made of the situation now confronting the 

I ask you once more this question : 

Have you ever turned over to unauthorized persons any govern- 
mental documents which have been temporarily in your custody? 

Mr.. Wadi.eigh. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
the answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. MuNDT. May I ask you whether there is any further state- 
ment you care to make before this connnittee ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. No, sir. 

Mr. MuNDT. Mr. McDowell has another question. 

Mr. McDowell. You testified, Mr. Waclleigh, that you are not a 
member of the Communist Party. I don't believe the question has been 
asked : Have you ever received any money, or any other valuable 
thing, for giving restricted information or documents to anyone? 

Mr.. Wadleigh. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
the answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. McDowell. Do you know where Keonig Street, Baltimore, is? 

Mr. Wadleigh. No, sir. 

Mr, McDowell. Mr. Wadleigh, are you married ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Yes, sir. 

IMr. McDowEix. Do you have a family? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McDowell. That is all. 

Mr. Mundt. Mr. Rankin. 

Mr. Rankin. I have one or two questions. 

Where were you on December 7, 1941 ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I presume I Avas at work in the State Department.. 
That was my regular place of business at the time. 

Mr. Rankin. You were still on the Federal pay rolls ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Yes. 

Mr. McDowell. That was on a Sunday. 

Mr. Wadleigh. Was it a Sunday? That's right. Well, I was at 

Mr. Rankin. Don't you remember where you were that day ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Yes ; I remember, now ; I was at home. 

Mr. Rankin. You were on the Federal pay roll at that time? 

Mr. Wadleigh. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Rankin. Are you aware of the fact that secret documents 
slipped out and supplied indirectly to the Japanese, contributed to 
the destruction of our Navy and the murder of more than 3,000 of 
our heroic men at Pearl Harbor ? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I believe I read something about that in the news- 

Mr. Rankin. I wondered how you found it out. Mr. Wadleigh, at 
that time were you giving out any secret documents? 


Mr. "Wadleigh. I refuse to answer that question on the ground that 
the answer nii<2:ht incriminate nie. 

Mr. Kaxkix. Now, then, in otlier woids, you are between two fires 
ri<i:ht now — one of them is treason and the other is perjury. If you 
admitted you did ^ive these documents out at that time, you woukl he 
guilty of treason. If you did not give them out, your answer is "No" — 
a very simjjk^ answei- — and the only tiling that could come to you by 
answering "No" would be conviction of ijerjury, if it was shown that 
you were giving out these documents at tliat time. 

Mr. Wadleigh. May I ask the committee this (question : If that mat- 
ter is considered germane to the Hiss-Chaml)ei's investigation, then my 
answer remains that 1 refuse to answer on the grounds that the answer 
might incriminate me. 

Mr. Rankin. It is germane. 

^fr. Wadleigh. If it is not germane to it. then perliaps I might 
change my testimon3\ 

Mr. Rankin. It is germane, and you better be glad tliat you are 
before a committee of Congress and not before a court maitial. 

Mr. Wadleigh. I am under tlie grand jury; I am still undei' subpena 
to the grand jury. 

Mr. Kankin. If you were before a court martial, you would answer 
whetlier or not you were giving out these secret documents at that 
time and perpetrating treason against your country. 

Mr. AA'adleh!H. I still ask: Is that germane to the Hiss-Cliambers 

Mr. Kankin. Yes; it is germane. 

Mr. Wadleigh. If it is germane, then my answer stands. If it is not 
germane, I am prejiared to change my answer to that one. 

Mr. MuNDT. Any other questions? 

Afr. NixoN. Yes; I wouhl like to folloAv tliat. Your answer to the 
question, then, is that you did not, in 11)41. give out any seci-et docu- 
ments to any group unconnected with the Hiss-Chambers controversy? 

Mr. Wadleigh. I stand by my previous testimony, sir, that if the 
committee rules that that niattei' is germane, I will ])ersist in refusing 
to answer the ([uestion. If the committee rules that the answer is not 
gei'mane. I will reconsider it. 

Mr. Mundt. No question about its germaneness, because it strikes 
rijrht at the core of what we are trvinir to detei-mine: Wlio was it who 
filched the documents from the State Department and delivei'ed them 
to A\'hittaker Chambers? It involves precisely those documents. It 
is ]irecisely germane. 

\\r. Kankin. And later to our enemies during the war. 

Mr. MiNDT. There being no further (piestions, the committee will 
stand adjourned, and the witness will be continued under our subpena. 

Mr. Russell, do we have another witness? 

That will be all for you foi- the moment, Mr. Wadleigh. 

\s'\U counsel call tlie next witness? 

]\[r. Russeij.. Mr. Owens. 

Before Mr. Wadleigh leaves, Mr. Chairman, do you desire that he 
be retained under subpena? 

Mr. MiNDT. Yes. 

Mr. Wadleigh. May I point out that I am still under subpena by 
the grand juiT ? 

]\rr. Mundt. You are now under two subpenas? 


Mr. Wadleigh. That is right. 

Mr. MuNDT. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are 
about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God ? 

Mr. Owens. I do. 

Mr. MuNDT. You may be seated. I 


Mr, Etjssell. Will you state your full name, Mr. Owens ? 

Mr. Owens. Courtney E. Owens. 

Mr. Russell. Mr. Owens, you are attached to the committee staff 
as an investigator, are you not ? 

Mr. Ow^ENS. That is right. 

Mr. Russell. Mr. Owens, did you serve a subpena upon Mr. Wad- 
leigh this morning? 

Mr. Owens. I did. 

Mr. Russell. Where was that subpena served ? 

Mr. Owens. The within-named individual served in the offices of 
Herman Greenberg, Joseph Forer, and David Rein, attorneys at law, 
1105 K Street NW., Washington, D. C, at 11 a. m. of this date. 

Mr. Russell. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Wadleigh last 
night regarding his appearance before the committee ? 

Mr. Owens. I did. 

Mr. Russell. That conversation occurred after you had endeavored 
to locate him all day yesterday, did it not i 

Mr. Owens. That's right. 

Mr. Russell. What clid Mr. Wadleigh tell you last night? 

Mr. Owens. Mr. Wadleigh reached me by phone last night about 
11 :30. We had endeavored to reach him at his home in Vienna, and 
his wife had no knowledge of his whereabouts. Mr. Wadleigh called 
me and said that he had been in New York all clay, and that he had 
been testifying before the grand jury. I told him that we had been 
searching for him, that the committee desired testimony from him, 
and he said that he would be glad to come down here tomorrow. 
Well, I said, "I would like to serve you, and where can I meet you 
tomorrow morning, at your office?" He said, "No," that he would 
rather meet me at our offices. 

He told me that he had an appointment to see counsel at 9 :30 this 
morning, and would come immediately to these offices from counsel's 
offices. That was what the gist of the conversation was last night. 

Mr. Russell. In other words, when he talked with you last night 
he gave you the impression that it was his counsel with whom he 
intended to confer in the morning? 

Mr. Owens. Exactly. 

Mr. Russell. That is this morning ? 

Mr. O^VENs. That's right. 

Mr. Russell. This morning did Mr. Wadleigh get in touch with 
you regarding his whereabouts ? 

Mr. Owens. No ; he didn't. I began to get a little concerned, and 
then made further attempts to locate Mr. Wadleigh at about 10:45 
when he hadn't shown or hadn't called. 

Mr. Russell. Did you locate Mr. Wadleigh ? 


Mr. OwFNS. Yes; I did. I located him in the offices that I read 
off a minute ago. 

Mr. liussELL. What time was that? 

'Sir. Owens. I reached him about 11, witliin 10 minutes of 11 o'clock, 
between 11 and 11:10. I left these ollices and proceeded to those 
offices, 1105 K Street. 

Ml-. Russell. That is all. 

Mr. MixnT. That is all for the witness. 

The committee will meet in executive session at 3 : 80 this afternoon. 

(Whereupon, at 1 : 50 p. m., the comiuittee adjourned.) 



United States House of Representatives, 

Special Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ D. G. 

The subcomniittee met, pursuant to call, at 11 : 30 a. m,, in the 
Caucus Room, Old House Office Building, Hon. Karl E. Mundt (acting 
chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: RepresentatiA^es Karl E. Mundt (pre- 
siding), John McDowell, Richard M. Nixon, Richard B. Vail, John 
E. Rankin, and F. Edward Hebert. 

Staff members present: Robert E. Stripling, chief investigator; 
Louis J. Russel and William A. Wheeler, investigators; and A. S. 
Poore, editor. 

Mr. Mundt. The committee will come to order, please. " 

The record will show that after being in executive session the motion 
was made we go into open session and was carried unanimously ; also 
that the following members of the committee are present in adclition 
to tlie chairman : Mr. McDowell, Mr. Nixon, Mr. Vail, Mr. Rankin, 
and Mr. Hebert. 

The connnittee had before it in executive session, briefly, Mr. Nathan 
Levine, and Mr. Stripling will please call Mr. Levine to the stand and 
let him proceed with his testimony in open session. 

Mr. Stripling. Mr. Levine, will you please take the witness chair. 

Mr. Mundt. Mr. Levine, I will ask you to stand and be sworn again. 

Do yon solemnly swear the testimony that you are about to give is 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Levine. I do. 

Mr. Mundt. You may be seated. 


Mr. Stripling. Mr. Levine, will you please state your full name ? 

Mr. Levine. Nathan L. Levine. 

Mr. Stripling. And your present address? 

Mr. Levine. 960 Sterling Place, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Mr. Stripling. Wliat is your profession ? 

Mr. Levine. I am an attorney at law. 

Mr. Stripling. How long have you been an attorney ? 

Mr. Levine. Since 1933. 

Mr. Stripling. Where do you practice law ? 

Mr. Levine. 152 West Forty-second Street, Manhattan. 



Mr. Stripling. "Wlien and where were you born ? 

Mr. LE^^NE. Januar}' 18, 1911, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Mr. SriuPLiNcj. Are you acquainted with an individual by the name 
of Whittaker Chambers^ 

Mr. Levin E. Yes. 

Mr. Stripmno. How lon<r have you known Mr. Chanilx'rs? 

I\Ir. Lkvinr. Approximately 15 years; since just before he was 
marrietl to my aunt. 

Mr. Hkbert. Do you mean you have known liim 15 years or did 
you know him 15 years before that ^ 

Mr. Lkvine. All told, 15 years. 

ISIr. Stripling. Mr. Levine, you are here in response to a subpemi 
served upon you by C. E. McKillips; is that correct? 

JNIr. T>i:vine. I am. 

!Mr. Striplix(;. Did Mi-. AVhittaker (^hamliei's ever <rive a i)arka<ie 
to you to hide for him or to keej) for him ( 

Mr. Levine. He gave me an envelope to put away for him some 
10 years ago. 

Mr. SiKii'Lixo. Will you exi)lain to the committt^e the cii'cumstances 
under which Mr. Chambers gave you this envelope. 

Mr. Levine. At that time he had been in morbid fear of being 
liquidated by the Connnunists. He had indicated to me at times that 
because he was no longer with the Communists that they were going 
to either assassinate him or hurt him or members of his family. He 
and his wife and his two children — I think the second one was already 
born — had been around the country going from i)lace to place and we 
did not know where they were about that time. 

On one or two occasions I accomi)anied him to an apjiointment that 
he had, in which he was afraid that the appointment was a plant, and 
I went along for whatever advantage T could be or whatever protec- 
tion T could be. 

On the occasion of his giving me the package, he asked me to put it 
away for him and that if anything hajipened to him 1 was to give 
it to Esther, his wife. In the conversation we also asked — and when 
I say '"we"* I mean myself — I asked what would ha))pen in the event 
both he and Esther were liquidatc>d, and he said, "You would know 
"what to do with it, you are an attorney." 

Mr. Stripling. "When he gave you this package v.-as it sealed? 

Mr. Levine. Yes. 

Mr. Striplixc;. Were you familiar with the contents? 

Mr. Levine. No. 

Mr. Stripling. But he indicated to you that if you o])ened it you 
•woidd know what tf) do with it; was that an impression that you got 
from him ( 

'Mr. Levine. Yes. 

Ml-. Striplix(;. Did he say anything about turning it over to the 
authorities or to the j)olice? 

Mr. Lkvine. Xo. That is my own assumption. 

Mr. Stkiplinc;. But he did tell you you would know what to do 
with it? 

Mr. Levine. That is right. 

JMr. Rankin. Give the size of the package, please. 


Mr. Levixe. Approximately 7 inches wide and about 11 or 12 
inches long, and approximately an inch to an inch and a half in 

Mr. MuNDT. Did it contain those articles Mr. Stripling is showing 
you ? 

Mr, Stiupling. Here is certain microfilm we have obtained by snb- 
pena, Mr. Levine, and ask you if it would have been possible for the 
three tin cylinders and the two rolls of film to have been in the 
envelope which he gave you ? 

Mr. LE^^I^^E. It was possible. 

Mr. Stripling. In other words, the envelope was large enough for 
these to have been placed inside ? 

Mr. Levine. And bulky or curved. 

Mr. Stripling. It was very bulky ? 

Mr. Levine. Yes. 

Mr. Stripling. What did you do with the package after Mr. Cham- 
bers gave it to you — 

Mr. Chairman, I have interrogated the witness regarding the details 
of this matter, and it will be necessary for him to give the address 
where this package was placed and where it was deposited for the 
10-year period. We have gone into it very thoroughly and the mem- 
bers of the staff of the committee are convinced up to this point, at 
least, that the persons who reside at this address are not involved or 
implicated in any way in this matter, and for that reason I ask that 
the committee take under consideration the deleting frora the record 
or keeping out of the i-ecord the exact address of the place where this 
package was concealed. 

Mr. Levine will be glad to give the committee the address. The 
proper authorities have the address. But I think no good purpose 
could be served at this time, under the circumstances which he has 
explained to me, to bring out the address. 

Mr. Levine. Mr. Chairman, I think I am willing to give the address 
to avoid any so-called mystery about this, and I wish the press would 
only be a little considerate about it. 

Mr. MuNDT. I think the press will be if you will explain the reason 

i\Ir. Levine. It is the address of my mother, and about 2 years ago 
we almost lost her. She has a heart condition and she is quite con- 
cerned about this. She does not know the actual hiding or putting 
place, but she knows it is in her house, and her children are making 
every effort to avoid her heartaches or trouble. 

Mr. MuNDT. I believe at the time you hid the films in the house you 
were living there ? 

Mr. Levine. Yes; and at that time I was single. 

Mr. McDowell. It is your hope the press will not swarm or over- 
whelm your mother. 

Mr. Levine. I hope so, sir. 

Mr. Stripling. You want to put the address in the record ? 

Mr. Levine. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Stripling, Go ahead and give the committee all of the circum- 
stances and details of what you did with this package after you re- 
ceived it from Wliittaker Chambers. 


Mr. Levine. I took this })iuk:i<ro and put it on top of the old dumb- 
M'iiitei- shaft wliicli liad been oonverled on the second and first Hoors 
into a liiu'u (■h)s('t. The aihh'ess is 2()(> Kochestei- A\t'mu'. Brooklyn, 
N. Y., and is the home of my folks. At that time I resided with them, 
and at that time they occupied l)oth the fii-st and second (loois. 

'I'he house is so constructed, or was so constructed, that there was 
an old dund)-waiter shaft from the toj) of the house to the cellar. On 
the second floor and on the fii-st flooi'. some 15 years ago it had been 
converted into a linen closet for each apartment. 

I j)ut it on the toj) of the dunib-waitei- shaft so that it rej)osed on 
the top of the linen closet on the second floor. Access t(> that particular 
spot was obtained throu<ih the bathroom window, which has an air 
shaft from the roof to the floor below, the first floor. It remained 
there foi- 10 years. 

Mr. Stkiim.ixg. Did you ever at any time during that period of 10 
years check to see if it was still there? 

Mr. Levine. No. T had forofotten about it. 

Mr. SrHii'LiNii. You put it there and it remained there? 

Mr. l<evine. That is right. 

Mr. Stoii'Mng. Before vou continue, Mr. Levine, I wish you would 
give the connnittee any intoi-niittion you hav<^ as to the manner in which 
this envelojie was sealed. 

Mr. Levine. It was a manila envelope and it was gummed. I be- 
lieve there was a piece of gum placed over the flaj). This gum j)iece 
is white with a red bordei'. Also there were two piongs which fasten 
over ami take the l\n\) of the envelope. I believe it was either elastic 
or rubber band, or possibly cord that originally bound it. 

Mr. Stripling. All right, sir. Now, you placed this envelope there 
10 years ago? 

ilr. Levine. That is right. 

Mr. Stripling. Do j^ou recall the date or time of year that you 
placed it there? 

Mr. Levine. No, sir. 

Mr. Striplinc. Did "Whittaker Chambers ever get in touch with you 
after you had placed it theie, regarding the ])ackage? 

Mr. Levine. About o weeks ago this j)ast Sunday he was at my home. 
On that morning I had received a telegram from him. which telegram 
was telephoned by Western Union to my home. Previous to that, on 
either the Thursday or Friday prior thereto, he had telephoned me and 
stated that he wanted to see me and said tlial he would contact me on 

Mr. Mi'ndt. As far as you can recall, what were the contents of that 

]\rr. Levine. "Arriving 1 oVlock. Have mv things readv," or words 
U) that effect. 

At the time that I received the telegram message over the telej)hone, 
my wife asked me what had occurred, or what the telei)hone call was, 
and I repeated the message to her. and she said to me, "What does he 
nu>an?" I said "I will be darned if I know. He jjrobably has .some 
books and pamphlets in the cellar of my mother's home, but in the 
10-year period my nephew and his friends must have cleaned out that 
cellar on four or five occasions and probably threw away most of the 


He still niav have some books there or pamphlets which I have shown 
to the FBI. 

At some time after 1 o'clock I received a telephone call from him 
telling me he had arrived and was coming down. He came to my 
home and we were just about finishing our lunch. We had other mem- 
bers of the family over. He came in and I invited him to have a cup 
of coffee and miscellaneous items of food. 

Mr. Stripling. What address was it he came to on this Sunday? 

Mr. Levixe. 060 Sterling Place, Brooklyn. 

Mr. MuNDT. That is your present home address ? 

Mr. Levine. Yes ; wliere I reside with my wife and two children. 

Mr. Stripling. I w^ant to make it clear this was not at the same 
address where these papers had been deposited. 

Mr. Levixe. Since January of 1939 I have been married, and m 
January 1939 I lived at 486 Brooklyn Avenue and have lived at other 
addresses since. 

Shall I proceed? 

]\Ir. Stripling. Yes ; proceed. 

Mr. Levine. During that afternoon we conversed and he told me 
about the Federal court proceeding wherein Alger Hiss had sued him 
for $75,000 damages in a slander and libel action, and that there were 
depositions then pending. He asked me various things pertaining to 
depositions and he then told me that one of the inquiries or interroga- 
tories was whether he had anything in writing pertaining to the Hiss 

I told him that the books and pamphlets that he had around the 
house and junk wei-e probably thrown out, that we still had some stuff 
in the cellar we didn't know whether it belonged to him or belonged to 
my brothers-in-law, or it might have even belonged t(5 me. 

During the conversation mention was made of a package that he 
had given to me some 10 years prior. I indicated to him that I had 
it over at mother's house, and during the time that he was there niother 
and dad and my brothers and sisters at times came in. The conversa- 
tion I had with him, of course, was interrupted, and he told them 
about his appearances before this committee and various other details. 

Mr. Stripling. What we want is all the facts which relate to this 

Mr. Levine. A little after 4 we left. I told the members of the 
family that were present in my apartment that I was going to take 
him to the train. We left and I took him to 260 Rochester Avenue, 
Brooklyn, N. Y. We went into the house, and much to my surprise, 
my nephew was still there, and he had been in his hobby cellar. 

Mr. Stripling. How old is your^ nephew? 

Mr. Levine. Twelve and a half. I introduced him to his uncle Whit- 
taker Chambers. He then went back into the cellar, and after I re- 
moved my coat, we went upstairs. I then went into the air shaft 
through the bathroom on the second floor and reached up and looked 
for this package. I got the package and gave it to him with the 10 
years of dust on it. Part of the dust fell off into the bathtub, onto the 
bathroom floor, and all over, and my hands were filthy. I remember 
that we washed our hands. 

JNIr. Stripling. You handed him the package? 

80408 — 48— pt. 2 6 


Mr. Lkvink. Tliat is riizht. TIumi :i little later he went into the 
kitchen and he apparently opened up the i)a('kaire. At that time I 
Avas in the hathrooiu eleanin<; up the mess in the bathtuh and on the 
floor and on the sink. On one oeeasion 1 came into the kitchen and 
he was standinjr about the middle of the kitchen with some papers in 
liis hands, and he uttered an exclamation to me which I don't lUMnem- 
ber the exact words — it was either "holy cow*' oi' some exclamation, 
"I didn't think that this still existed," or "was still in existence.*' 

About that time Donald, my nephew, called to me and I went to the 
hall. AA'hen T came back later, he asked me to obtain an envelope oi- 
what they call a fokler, antl I went downstairs and procured a folder 
and fiiwe it to him. 

I think I went back to the hall and then a little latei- we left. 

Mr. Strii'ltn(;. Where did you <r() when you left the housed 

Mr. Li:vixE. 1 started to take him to the subway station, but instead 
I took him to the Pennsylvania Railroad Station by car — in my ear. 

Mr. Stripling. What conversation, if any, ensued after you left the 

Mi-. r^EvixE. Well, we talked about the Federal court matter, various 
details. He asked me questions about depositions, and I fjave him 
some le<;al advice and I asked him if I could jiossibly hel}) him in that 
Federal court case. I told him. thoujih, that he would first have to 
si)eak to his attorney. lie told me who his attorney was. 

Mr. STKirLiNG. You say the Federal court case. You are speaking 
now of the civil action? 

Mr. Lkvixe. That is rio;ht. 

Mr. S'nuri.iNM;. Proceed. 

Mr. Levixe. He told me that ^fr. Cleveland was his attorney, and 
I told him thatlie had better ask Mr. Cleveland before he could avail 
himself of my counsel, that Mr. Cleveland mi<rht not want me to come 
down fi'om New York. 

During the conversation we also spoke about the atmosphere in 
which his Federal court case was going to be tried. I told him that 
the pul)lic was probably forgetting about all this spy ttilk that had 
ensued during the summer and that if I were he, I would either get a 
good publicity man or I would write a series of articles waking uj) 
America to the situation that he was trying to accomi)lish. and that 
if he had a better atmosphere, chances are that the result he woidd 
obtain in the Federal coiii-t would be much better for him. 

He also told me about Alger Hiss and his various connections. 

Mr. Stiui'lixg. Had he ever told you prior to that time the details 
of his operations in the Communist Apparatus and undei-groumH 

Mr. Levixe. No. 

Mi-. Striplixg. He had never discussed those details with you? 

Mr. Levixe. No. 

Mr. Sthii'Eixc;. INIr. Levine, are you now or have you (>ver been a 
member of the (\)mmunist Party ^ 

Mr. Levixe. I am not a Communist and I have never been a Com- 
munist, nor has anv other member of mv familv been a Conmiunist or 
is a Communist. 

Mr. SiHin,iX(;. You then took Mr. Chambers to the i-ailioad station 
and let him out: is that correct? Did \'ou leave liim there? 


Mr. Levine, He invited me in to dinner, I had dinner with him, in 
the Pennsylvania restaurant, and then we went out. He had a little 
time. We went back to my car and we talked, and I tried to give him 
some legal advice. He told me to wait until I heard from him. 

Up until that time I didn't even know his farm address. I had 
never been to his home. Up until that time I had not seen him for 4 
years and over a period of 10 years I might have seen him but four or 
five times. 

IVlien he came to my home, my wife had not seen him in the 10 years 
that we had been married, or approximately 10 years that we had 
been married. I introduced him to my son, who is going to be 8 in 
January, saying that that was his uncle. Up until recently, when 
I had noticed in the papers, I didn't know he had been a Quaker. I 
thought he had another religious faith. 

I recall one incident approximately a little after the time he became 
associated with Time magazine. I had been with him and he told 
me that the reason he took a job with Time magazine was so that he 
should be in the public eye so that tlie Communists would not dare 
attempt to liquidate him. That was the reason he took a job of such 

Mr. Stripling. That is all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MuNDT. The Chair would like to ask this question : 

You have known Whittaker Chambers altogether, as I understand 
it, about 15 years or 10 years. 

Mr. Levine. About 15 years. A little before he was married to 
my aunt. 

Mr. MuNDT. During that interval did you know him by any other 
name than Whittaker Chambers? Did you ever communicate with 
you in any way under any alias or pseudonym ? 

Mr. Levine. No, sir. He was only known as Whittaker Chambers. 

Mr. MuNDT. When he would sign a communication to you such as 
telegrams, he would sign Whittaker Chambers or Uncle Whittaker? 

Mr. Levine. Just Whit. We rarely used the "uncle" part. 

Mr. MuNDT. You mentioned earlier that on one or two occasions 
because of Mr. Chambers' dread fear of Communists, you accompanied 
him on appointments to places he felt might be a plant. 

Mr. Levine. That is right. 

Mr. MuNDT. Could you give us any insight into the nature of the 
appointments of that type ? 

Mr. Levine. I remember on one occasion when he visited a woman 
in connection with some free-lance translating work, that he appar- 
ently was doing for his livelihood. Before we went up there, he 
asked me to have dinner with him, and I had dinner with him some 
place in New York, and he then told me that he wanted me to ac- 
company him to this particular place and that he was afraid that 
possibly some Communist had made the appointment as a plant and he 
was fearful of the results. 

He asked me if I would go along with him and, of course, I said I 
would, and I think he once said, "Well, do you know how to scream," 
or some words to that effect. The place is either in the 100-and-some- 
odd street or in the Bronx in an apartment house. I went there and I 
sat nearby within hearing distance, and they talked about translating 
some manuscript. Apparently it was a perfectly legitimate set-up. 


Mr. ]\IrxnT. Knowinjr your uncle as y»)u did. did ho «j;ivo you a 
pretty definite oj)iuion, autiientic oijiuion. that lie actually was in 
fear of soniethin<r? 

Mr. Levine. There is no douht about that. 

Mi-. MrxDT. Xo douht ahont that? 

Mr. Levine. Xo doubt abt)ut it. 

Mr. IMuNDT. And that continued for about how lon<r, this feelinj^ 
of fear on his part t 

Mr. Lkvixe. Well. T wouldn't b(> surprised if it continued to a little 
after the time he took the job with Time magazine and jirobably t-ou- 
tinued in reservation to date. 

Mr. MixuT. Were there any other appointments on which you ac- 
companied him as a sort of protector or secui-ity oflicer? 

Mr. Levixe. There was another occasion, but I couldn't tell you the 

Mr. ]\Ii'XDT. Tt also turned out to be not a plant ? 

Mr. Levixe. That is ri<rht. He met some man. 

Mr. McDowEEE. Mr. Chairman. I think the conunittee should know 
re<rardin<r Mr. Tjevine some of the actions at the hearing in the Hotel 
Commodore in Xew York last Monday niuht when Mr. T>eviiie's name 
Avas brought into this matter for the lirst time. 

Mr. Chambers was asked various questions as to tliese matters that 
have been testified to here today. We were concerned about where 
this stuff had l)eeii kept over a period of years. He described when he 
had put the material into the pumi)kin only a few hours before it was 
finally found. He then described that he had friven this packa<re t(j 
his nei)hew and he named Xathan Levine rather reluctantly. 

When we (|uestioned him about Xathan T.<evine. he promi)tly (|uali- 
fied Mr. Ijevine as knowinji^ nothin*; at all about the contents of the 
packaire. about not bein<j: a Communist in any sense, of b<Mn<r, as he 
described it, a very fine and decent vounp: lawyer in the citv of New 

Now, subsequent investifration by the members of tiie staff indit-ates 
that Mr. Chambers was tellin<j the truth, that Mr. I.<evine is a normal 
patriotic and decent citizen and has no connection with this entire 
conspiracy. I think that should l)e made a ])art of the record. 

Mr. MuNDT. 1 ai)preciate that. Mr. McDowell, and I think it is 
very important to make that statement. 

Mr. McDowell. Also investijration develops that he has a reputa- 
tion of beiiiif not only a lawyer, but a <;ood lawyer. 

Mr. T.<i:vixE. Thank you. 

Mr. MuxDT. The committee is simply tryinp: to corroborate or dis- 
prove some of the previous testimony we have had concerning; the 
location and transfer of this envelope of material, and up to now 
your testimony has corroborated the executive session testimony that 
we have had on that point by Mr. Chambers. 

^Ir. Kaxkix. Mr. Levine. you say this material was hid on top of 
a dumb-waiter. AVas that dumb-waiter in use during; those years? 

Mr. Levine. Xo. Al)oiit 15 or 20 years a<ro the dumb-waiter shaft 
had been converted on the floor levels — the second floor and first floor — 
into linen closets. 

Mr. Kankix. So it was what you mitrht call a dead dumb-waiter. 

Mr. Levixe. A dead dumb-waiter shaft. Just dumb. 

Mr. Raxkin. That is all I care to ask. 


Mr. Nixox. You indicated that you put this envelope in the shaft 
in the first instance approximately 10 years ago? 

Mr. Levine. That is right. 

Mr. Nixon. And you were the person who obtained it from the 
shaft 4 weeks ago this Sunday? 

Mr. Levine. This coming Sunday. 

Mr. Nixon. Yes. 

Mr. Levine. That is right. 

Mr. Nixon. Now in examining the envelope would you say — was 
there any question in your mind whatever that it might have been 
opened in that period ? 

Mr. Levine. It wasn't open and I think the condition of the envelope 
would indicate that it was there during the entire 10 years. I pointed 
out to the FBI and showed them the spot. They examined the spot. 

I also say that you can examine the dust up there and the dust on 
the envelope and I can show you that it came from the same spot. 
Probably the condition of the envelope itself would show you that 
it had existed there for 10 years. 

Mr. Nixon. The seal had not been broken ? 

Mr. Levine. The seal had not been broken. It had been inviolate 
and until that time Mr. Chambers didn't know it was there. 

Mr. Nixon. Mr. Chambers during this 10-year period didn't know 
it was in that spot ? 

Mr. Levine. Of course not. 

Mr. Nixon. You were the only person that knew it was in that spot? 

Mr. Levine. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Nixon. As far as you know, then, nobody during that period 
had access to that particular spot where the envelope was located 
or availed themselves of access to that spot ? 

Mr. Levine. That is right. 

Mr. Nixon. I want to have the record clear on another point. When 
you learned of the contents of this envelope there, will you describe 
to the committee when you first learned it and what you did at 
that time ? 

Mr. Levine. This past Friday when the news exploded in the news- 
papers, I had occasion to see it in one of the New York papers. 

Mr. MuNDT. By that you mean the news exploded involving your 

Mr. Levine. No; exploded that there was some spy papers. 

Mr. McDowell. In the pumpkin? 

Mr. Levine. In the pumpkin or whatever it was. All I remember 
is there was news about spy papers, and I put two and two together. 
I telephoned the Federal attorney's office and I went down later to 
the Federal attorney's office on Friday. 

I had seen the FBI men on Saturday and Sunday, and I have 
testified before the grand jury in part on Wednesday. 

Mr. Nixon. Did the Department of Justice people talk with you 
Friday about this case ? 

Mr. Levine. In all fairness to them, I just asked whether they 
could see me. 

Mr. Nixon. You gave them your name? 

Mr. Le\t:ne. Oh, yes. Then after waiting a little while, a sugges- 
tion came from the Secretary that the party was very, very busy and 


could 1 see them Monday or was it all ri<i;ht if I let it «;o until Mon- 
day, and 1 said, '"All light, let it go until Monday,'' that I would 
get in touch with the office on Monday. 

Saturday and Sunday I had the Fl3I men at my house and we had 
them also over at '2(\(). 

Mr. Xi.\c)N. You heard from the Department of Justice again when, 
on Monday? 

Mr. Li.viNK. They asked me to appear before the grand jury on 
^londay. 1 appeared without a subpena and then 1 was served with 
a sul)i)ena later during the day. I wasn't reached on Monday. I 
was subject to a telei)hone call every hour on Tuesda}' and on Wednes- 
day morning 1 test ilied befoie the giand jury in part, and I understand 
1 am still subject to cull lor continuance of m^' testimony. 

Mr. XixoN. Mr. Chairman, the witness has testified concerning the 
connection Mr. Chambers had with Time magazine. I think at this 
point in the record it might be well to read into the record the state- 
ment Ml. Chambers has just released in New York City se\ering his 
connection with Time magazine. 

It reads as follows : 

I have (irt«'r(>(l my ri'si^riiatitHi as a seiiioi- editor (tf Time inaRaziiie. It lias 
been accepted. l}(»th of these acts became imijcrativc when I receiill.v began ty 
make reveUitious about Communist espionage. When Time hired me in 1939, its 
editors knew that I was an ex-Comnmnist ; they did not know that espionage 
was involved. 

For 9 yeais I have l)e('n actively figliting communism. I boliove I was helpful 
in alerting Time's editors years ago to the dangers of world-wide connnunism 
which have been confirmed by events and which are now generally, if not im- 
peratively, understood in this cotmti'y. In my own writing I have tried to give 
expression to human values which I know from my own exjx'rience communism 
denies and destroys. Now, after 9 years of work done in good conscience, I have 
been called up to expose the darkest and most dangerous side of couinninism — 
espionage. This can be done only if a man who knows the facts will stand up 
and tell them, without regard to the cost or conse(]uences to liimself. I cannot 
share this indispensjible ordeal with anyone. Therefore, with a quiet and firm 
mind, I am withdrawing fi-om amonu the colli-agnes witli whom I worked for 
so many years and whose supiK)rt has been loyal and generous. 

The statement of the publisher of Time, Mr. Linen, upon receivinir 
this statement today from Mr. Chambers, is as follows : 

Time has accepted Mr. Chambers' resignation for the reasons he so well 

In accei)ting his resignation now, Time does not wish to prejudge and is not 
prejudging his recent disclo-sures. Not until all the evidence is in can the pros 
and cons be weigiied. 

Mr. R.vxKiN. Mr. Chairman, a i)oint of order. 
Mr. XixoN (continuing reading) : 

Against the admittwl disservice to his countiT of a deeade ago. must be set 
the service we are convincetl he is trying to perform for his country now. 

I have a T^articular reason for briiioin<r this in at this time. 

Mr. K.\NKiN. From the vicious and unwarranted attacks that Time 
magazine has made on me. I don't think a Communist on their editorial 
staff would embarass them, and I just object to reading this 
of it into the record. I don't mind them reading the witness' testi- 
mony in here. 

Mr. MuNDT. Your objection is noted, but it comes after the fact. 
The reading has been concluded. 


Mr. K-ANKiisr. As far as I am concerned, all the perfumes in Arabia 
wouldn't sweeten Time magazine to me. 

Mr. Nixon, Mr. Levine, Mr. Chambers could have avoided his pres- 
ent difficulty very easily by simply having you destroy these documents ; 
could he not ? 

Mr. Levine. He could have destroyed them himself or the house 
could have gone on fire and destroyed them. 

Mr. Nixon. There was never any suggestion at the time he saw these 
documents that they were to be destroyed ? 

Mr, Levine. No. There was no suggestion as to their contents. 

Mr. Nixon. I might say also, Mr. Chairman, in that connection that 
this committee during its hearings during the past summer and also, 
as well exemplified by the witness that we heard yesterday, has heard 
witness after witness come before it, men who have been most critical 
of Mr. Chambers and who have when they have been questioned con- 
cerning their activities in the Communist underground plead 

I think that with the criticism which, of course, must be made of 
Mr, Chambers for the actions that he committed 10 years ago which 
were not in the best interests of this country, that in fairness to him 
we should recognize that this evidence which has the effect of bringing 
before the American people for the first time effectively the real 
essence of the Communist conspiracy and its real danger, is available 
only because this man was willing to risk a jail sentence, the loss of 
his position, and criticism of his family and of himself from now on. 

Mr. Levine. Absolutely. 

Mr. Nixon. I wish to also point out that Mr. Chambers came to 
the Committee on Un-American Activities 10 years after his activities 
with the Communist Party were severed. He testified, he answered 
questions, he answered all of them at that time that we propounded 
concerning the individuals who were before the committee; and, in 
presenting that information, he himself could have followed exactly 
the same line under the same Constitution that some of the Com- 
munists are availing themselves of at the present time and plead self- 
incrimination. As a result of that Mr. Chambers would still be a senior 
editor of Time magazine, his family would still be in a favorable 
position as far as he is concerned, and there would be no danger what- 
ever to his life insofar as threats from the Communists or insofar as 
Government prosecution, M'hich apparently is inevitable at the present 

I am not making this statement for the purpose of making a defense 
of Mr. Chambers, but I think the record should show the factors 
which enter in at this time, and I for one wish to say that Mr. Cham- 
bers, apart from the disservice that was rendered to the country and 
a disservice which was rendered only because there were people in this 
Government who gave him the information that he was able to turn 
over to the Communists and which he couldn't have rendered without 
the cooperation of those people, that apart from that, that Mr, Cham- 
bers has willingly and voluntarily, with no necessity at all upon his 
part to do so, rendered a great service to the country by bringing these 
facts before the American people at this time. 

That is all. 


Mt-. ^ri'XDT. "With tliat the Chair wouhl like to a(hl conroniiiiir the 
si<];iiilicaiic-e of the revehitioii of those (loeiunents the fact that in New 
York a day or two a*ro a representative of the Department of Justice 
in a rare moment of }1(hh\ will and »renerositv toward this committee, 
said publicly that at last tlicv had been supjuied with some documen- 
tary evidence to proceed witii this case, and that (h)cumcntary evidence 
came because and only because the investigator of this conunittee 
found those documents, ])rocured them, made them available without 
subpcna to the Attoi-iu^v (ieiUM-al's odice. :ind lUMthei- all the perfume in 
Arabia nor the sli<j;htly less arouuitic odor of a red luMiino- can erase 
that from the record. 

Mr. IIkmkkt. Mr. Levine, lu)w well had you known your uncle, ^Miit- 
takei" (^hambers. befoi'e he took you into his confidence to take tluit 
packa<j:e to set-rete for him ( 

Mr. Lkvink. Well, I knew him socially; I recall ^oino; to the gym 
with him, T had dinner occasionally with nim. 

For a shoi't period of time, 1 thiidv ai-ound ID.'iG, 19;'>7, he occupied 
the hall bedroom at 'JGO Rochester Avemie, wliich he occasic>nally came 
into, I think for a very short period of time, a period of a few months. 
That w;is the i-eason we were left with his books and junk. 

Mr. HkiU'.rt. He lived at your home? 

Mr. Lkvink. He occupietl the hall bedroom and had access from the 
liall. His wife was my aunt, 

Mr. Hkhkrt. Did she go away with him wlien he went away or did 
slie remain there? 

Mr. Lkvixk. He lived there alone. 

Mr. Hkmkkt. Wliere did she live? 

Mr. Levine. Throughout the country, addresses T couldn't even tell 

INIr. Heukht. What business was he in ? 

Mr. Levine, I did not know, other than I remember sometldng about 
the woi-d "accounting" or he was translating books. 

Mr. Hkhkrt. He was a writer? 

Mr. Lkvink. He was either a writer or translator. He translated for 
other writers. 

Mr. Hkhkrt. Did you ever know wliether he lived in Washington 
over any period of time? 

Mr. LK^^NE. No, sir. 

Mr. Hkhkrt. You did not know that ? 

Mr. T>KviNK. Xo. sii-. 

Mr. Hkhkrt. Did you ever hear him mention tlu> name of George 
Crosley ? 

Mr. Lkvine. Xo, sir. 

Mr. Hkhkrt. Did you evei- hear him mention the name of Alger Hiss 
or Donald at that time i 

Mr. Levine. No sir. 

Mr. Hkhkrt. Except for the fact tliat you assumed that he was a 
translatoi- of books oi- a writer in a fashion, that was the only occupa- 
tion you knew he had? 

Mr. Levine. Other than the word possibly "accounting" or "account- 

Mr. Tn:HERT. Did he ever ex])ound his communistic theories of gov- 
ernment to you or discuss any political form of government with you? 

Mr. Levine. No, sir. 


Mr. Hebert. You had no indication at all to indicate to you that 
he was a member of the Communist Party or a Communist func- 
tionary ? 

Mr. Levine. That is right. 

Mr. Hebert. What reaction did you have when he finally told you 
he was a Communist and had broken away and was in danger of his 
life ? Did you discuss that with him ? 

Mr. Levine. I guess a sort of protective one. He was a relative. 

Mr. Hebert. Was it a surprise to you ? 

Mr. Levine. Well, it was certainly a surprise. 

Mr. Hebert. Did you ask him how he had become a Communist and 
why he had broken ^ 

Mr. Levine. No; I don't think we went into that. He was older 
than myself, and I apparently must have listened rather than asked 
questions at that time . 

Mr. Hebert. How old are you ? 

Mr. Levine. I am now 37. 

Mr. Hebert. He is 10 years older than you ? 

Mr. Levine. Yes. 

Mr. Hebert. He is 47 or 48. There was nothing that occurred in 
your mind to discuss this matter with him other than for him to hand 
the package to you and for you to secrete it ? 

Mr. Levine. I didn't secrete it. I put it away. 

Mr. Hebert. If you crawled up a shaft to hide something in the 
dumb-waiter shaft, you certainly secreted it. That is not a customary 
place to store articles, is it? 

Mr. Levine. No, sir. 

Mr. Hebert. You secreted it. 

Mr. Levine. I put it away so the prying hands of children wouldn't 
get it. 

Mr. Hebert. Did you put anything else up there so that the prying 
hands of children couldn't get at it ? 

Mr. Levine. No ; that is the only time. 

Mr. Hebert. You did secrete it. 

Mr. Chairman, I w^ant to comment and again reiterate my position. 
I believe Mr. Chambers has done a splendid service to this countiy. 
At the opening of these hearings I made the remark that the only way 
you could find criminals and have a successful police department was 
through the use of stool pigeons. 

I do want to comment, however, and bring out the fact that Mr. 
Chambers did not tell this committee the entire facts in the case 
when he was brought before us the first time; and if it had not been 
for Mr. Alger Hiss filing a suit against Mr. Chambers which forced 
Mr. Chambers to produce evidence to protect himself in a slander 
suit, we probably would not have gotten as much as we now have. 

I don't want to commend Mr. Hiss for bringing a libel suit. I say 
that in an objective fashion in order to keep the record straight. 

I appreciate what Mr. Chambers has done, and I don't appreciate 
the fact that he may be used as the goat of the situation, and all these 
expressions of gratitude to Mr. Chambers and condemnation of others 
should not allow this committee to lose sight of the fact that the man, 
men, woman, or women in the State Department who stole those docu- 
ments have not been apprehended by the j)roper agency of this Govern- 
ment after 10 years. That is the important thing. Chambers and 


Hiss are incidents to me. I want the real criminals and I want the 
people who are supposed to know how to do their business to <ret them 
and stop issuing statements in criticism of a connuittee which is trying 
to do its job. 

Mr. MuNDT. In that connection, I wonder if you would not agree 
with the Chair. You make a very important ])()int. Had it not l)een 
for the existence of this committee and the functioning: of this com- 
mittee in open hearing, Mr. Alger Hiss would never have brought 
suit against Mv. Whittaker Chambers, so the documents woidd never 
have been brought into existence up until this very moment. 

Mr. Hebkkt. If it had not been for the existence of this committee, 
this country would not have been alerted against tlie danger of Com- 
munists and communism. It has been a tough fight against almost 
insurmountable odds. 

Mr. Rankin. Since the rest of you have expressed your views, I 
would like to say this: I am not yet convinced that Mr. Chambers 
was not a Comnnmist during the time he was on the staff of Time 
magazine. I cannot join in any exuberant commendation of a man 
who knew all during the war, according to his own testimony, that this 
man AVadleigh, who had been passing out, according to his statement, 
secret dfKMmients from the State Department, was still in that ])osi- 
tion and ]:)robably carrying on the same conduct while our boys weie 
dying by the thousands on every battle front in the world, and many 
of them perhaps as a result of this treachery: ;md knowing also at 
the time that this man Hiss, who he says was also ])er))('ti'ating this 
treason, was still in the State Department — all that tlirows many ([ues- 
ion marks with me, but there is one thing that is definitely certain. 

"Willi all the nagging we have had from the present Attorney Gen- 
eral, this committee has done a great work and if it had not been for 
this connuittee, this conspiracy would never have been uncovered. 
If we did not have the ocular proof, I would still have grave doubt^s. 
but we have these microfilms, copies of the documents that were 
stolen fi'om the State Department at that time, sind nobody has ever 
been able to explain those documents oi' those microlilms a way. 

In other Avords, in the words of William C. Bi-andt. the great 
iconoclast, "You can't explain a dead cat out of the family cistern." 
They have never been able to ex])lain those documcMits ;iway. and if 
we had listened to the carping criticism of Tom Clark, the Atloiney 
Geneial, we would never have got our hands on them. 

Mr. Stripling. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Mv\m: Mi-. Vail. 

Mr. Yah.. Mr. Levine. during the lO-yt'ar period duiing which you 
had possession of the envelope, did you ever have a feeling of curiosity 
as to its contents ( 

Mr. IvF.VTXF.. I had f<^rgotten about it. 

Mr. \\ml. You uiarried suhsecjuent ly. You never had any occasion 
to discuss the envelo])e with your wife ? 

Mr. Lkvine. No. sir; except recently, if you mean that. 

iSIr. Vail. No: T meant pvlov to that. When the Hiss-Chambers 
case broke and this conunittee was holding hearings on that ca-e, 
didn't vour memory revert back to the time when Mr. Chambers had 
delivered the documents to you : 

Mr. Levine. No, sir. 


Mr, Vail. In other words, you never gave it another thought until 
it was brought to your attention by Mr. Chambers again? 

Mr. Levine. That is right. 

Mr. Vail. But you did remember at that time the phice it was ? 

Mr. Levine. Not immediately, but by tlie time we got to 260 Roches- 
ter Avenue. 

Mr. Vail. If you had recalled it, it would be natural for you to re- 
move the envelope ? 

Mr. Levine. Certainly. 

Mr. Vail. But you had completely forgotten its existence? 

Mr. Levine. That is right. 

Mr. Vail. And it was recalled to your memory 

Mr. Levine. Besides, I didn't know the contents of it. 

Mr. Vail. At the time that it was opened in your home 

Mr. Levine (interposing). My mother's home. 

Mr. Vail. In your mother's home, did you have an opportunity 
to view the contents at that time ? 

Mr. Levine. No; outside of this instance where he was holding 
some papers in the kitchen and I came in. Outside of that instance, 
I didn't have any opportunity ; and besides, even if I saw what it was, 
I still wouldn't know what it was except writing. 

Mr. Vail. You didn't have an opportunity then to look closely 
enough to see the film ? 

Mr. Levine. That is right. 

Mr. Vail. On those occasions when you accompanied Mr. Cham- 
bers to these suspected plants, you went along as his body guard? 

Mr. Levine. I guess you would call it that, 

Mr. Vail. Were jon armed ? 

Mr. Leat:ne. Oh, no. 

Mr. Vail. No further questions. 

Mr, Levine, Except I am 6 feet 1. 

Mr. Rankin. When he opened these documents there, you said 
in the kitchen, did you suspect the significance of them at all? 

Mr. Levine, He opened them, and I was in the bathroom. At the 
time he opened the envelope in the kitchen, I was in the bathroom. 

]Mr. Rankin. I understand. 

Mr. Levine. And then a little later when I did come in, I still 
didn't know what they were and I didn't know what they were until 
this past Friday when this thing exploded in the newspapers. 

Mr. Rankin. Did j'ou suspect the significance of them at that 

Mr. Levine. Of course not. If I did, I would have burned them, 

Mr. Rankin. Well, to say the least, we are uncovering some of the 
most flagrant treason that has ever been committed in the history 
of this country, 

Mr, MuNOT, Anything further? If not, thank you, Mr. Levine. 

The committee will go into executive session in the committee room 
at this time, 

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p, m,, the open session was concluded,) 



United States House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the Committee on 

Un-xVmerican Activities, 

Washington^ D. G. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a. m., in room 226, 
Old House Office Building, Hon. Karl E, Mundt presiding. 

Committee members present : Rejjresentatives Karl E. Mundt, John 
McDowell, Richard M. Nixon, John E. Rankin, and F. Edward 

Staff members present: Robert E. Stripling, chief investigator; 
Louis J. Russell, Donald T. Appell, investigators; and A. S. Poore, 

Mr. Mundt, The committee will come to order. 

The committee has been hearing in executive session a series of pre- 
liminary questions propounded to Mrs. Bachrach, and by motion of 
the committee, passed unanimously, we have decicled to go into open 
session at this time. I will ask Mrs. Bachrach to stand and be sworn 
under the usual procedure. 

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will 
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God? ' ' FJ 

Mrs. Bachrach. I do. 

Mr. Block. If the Chairman please, could I assume that my notice 
of appearance has been duly noted and that it is not necessary to 
repeat it ? 

Mr. Mundt. We will get to that in a moment. 


Mr. Stripling. Mrs. Bachrach, will you please state your full name 
and present address. 

Mrs. Bachrach. Marion BacRrach, 242 West Eleventh Street, New 
York City. 

Mr. Stripling. What is your present occupation ? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I am a writer. 

Mr. Stripling. Where are you employed? 

Mrs. Bachrach. In the national office of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Stripling. How long have been employed there ? 

Mrs. Bachrach. To the best of my recollection, approximately 3 

Mr. Stripling. Would you give the committee a resume of your pro- 
fessional background for the last 15 years I 



Mrs. Bachrach. On advice of counsel and involving my rights botlj 
under the first amendment and the fifth amendment. I refuse to answer 
that question. Under the fii^st amendment I consider it an invasion 
of my ri<rhts to privacy of association and ])olilical views. I wish to 
make in open session the statement I have ah'eady ma(k> in closed ses- 
sion, concerninji: my understandinir of the fifth amendment, and that 
is that it was desi<rned not to shield the ^lilty, but to protect the inno- 
cent aLMinst possible self-inci-imination. and I therefoi-e exei-cise my 
riirht against ])ossible self-incrimination in refusin<r to answer that 

Mr. MuxDT. The Chair would like to say at this point, as he did in 
the closed session, that he believes tiie ladv has e.\i)ressed the jfenesis of 
the fifth ameiuhnent coi-rectly, but unfortunately a <rreat many jiuilty 
have been using it to shield the guilty as well as to protect the innocent. 

]\rr. Raxkix. She admits she represents an organization that is 
dedicated to the overthrow of this Government. 

Mr. Mi'XDT. That is right. 

Mr. Striplixg. ]\Irs. Bachrach, are you here in response to a sub- 
pena i 

Mrs. Baciiracii. Yes. 

Mr. Stku'lin'^g. Are you accompanied b}' counsel? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I am. 

Mr. Striplixg. Counsel, would you identify yourself again for the 
record ? 

jNIr. Bloch. My name is Emanuel II. Bloch. I am an attorney with 
offices at 270 Broadway, New York City. 

Mr. Stripling. Is this your first appearance before this conmiittee? 

Mr. Bt.och. It is not. 

Mr. Strh'lixg. Did you represent Mr. Steve Nelson when he was 
before the committee? 

Mr. Bloch. I did. 

Mr. IMrxoT. AVho is Mr. Steve Nelson? 

Mr. SiHirLiNc;. A\'<)uld you identify Mr. Steve Nelson for us? 

Mr. Block. Before I answer that, how long ago was that? 

'Sir. Striplixg. Several months ago. He is a Communist Party 

Mr. Rankix. Let me ask this, Mr. Stripling. Did you say he wa« 
a Connnunist Party official? 

Mr. Strh'Lixg. He is a Communist Party official. He was called be- 
fore the committee in connection with the espionage investigation re- 
garding the theft of atomic secivts. 

He declined to answer the questions, 

Mr. Raxkix. He admitted he was a representative of the Coni- 
nninist Party ? 

Mr. SiifU'LixG. He still is. I believe Mr. McDowell can explain it 

Mr. ^fcDowKLL. He is the head of the Communist Party in western 
Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, and noi-thern AVest Virginia. He now 
lives in Harmarville, Pa. I believe he served the Communist Party foi- 
a number of years as a sort of secretary of labor. He is an expert 
on so-called foi-eign groups and is currently working to keep the Tito 
Comimmists from jumping the line here as they did abroad. 



Mr. Bloch. I assume that I don't have to answer the question. Now 
1 have no kno^vledge of some of the things Congressman McDowell 
says, except that Steve Nelson, to my knowledge — and he so testified 
here — was, and I believe still is, a functionary of the Communist Party 
operating in or about the Pittsburgh area. 

Mr. MuNDT. That is the Steve Nelson you represented ? 

Mr. Bloch. Yes; a few months ago he was subpenaed to appear 
before this committee and before a subcommittee consisting of Con- 
gressman Thomas, Congressman McDowell, and Congressman Vail, 
and the hearing was conducted in this very room. I don't recollect 
the precise date. 

Mr. Rankin. Are you a Communist ? 

Mr. Bloch. I would like to respond to Congressman Rankin's 

Mr. Rankin. Just answer the question. That is all. 

Mr. Bloch. I am going to answer it. This question by Congress- 

Mr. MuNDT. The record should show before you answ^er it that the 
lawyer has not been sworn. 

Mr. Rankin. I ask that he be sworn, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MuNDT. He is not a witness. 

Mr. Rankin. He is going to make an awful lot of testimony here. 

Mr. Bloch. I haven't offered any testimony yet. You asked a 
question, and I am perfectly willing to reply to you if you will give 
me a chance. 

Mr. Rankin. Unless he is willing to answer under oath, I withdraw 
the question. 

Mr. MuNDT. The question is withdrawn. Proceed, Mr. Stripling. 

Mr. Nixon. I have one question. 

Was Mr. Nelson the man that was alleged to have been involved in 
the "Scientist X" case? 

Mr. Stripling. That is right. 

Mr. McDow^ELL. Nelson, by the way, is a native of Croatia. 

Mr. Bloch. I would like to say, if I may-- — 

Mr. MuNDT. Unless you want to be sworn, you are not to testify. 

Mr. Bloch. I am making a request of the chairman. 

Have I that privilege ? 

Mr. MuNDT. You may. 

Mr. Rankin. I object. 

Mr. Bloch. I don't want any implications of statements here to 
redound against me or my professional integrity or my rights as an 
American citizen, and I resent the implication. I am here in accord- 
ance with an honored tradition of the law. 

Mr. Stripling. For several montlis the Committee on Un-American 
Activities has had under investigation the operations of alleged under- 
ground apparatus of the Communist Party which existed in the Gov- 
ernment here in Washington from 1934 through 1938 that we know of. 

The questions which will be directed to you this morning have to 
do with determining the facts regarding that apparatus. If you de- 
cline to answer the questions on constitutional grounds, I wish you 
would so state. If you do not have the information of your own 
knowledge, we would like for you to state and not to give a blanket 
answer. Is that understood? 

Mrs. Bachrach. That is understood. 


Mr. Hkbert. Mr. Chairman. I ajjain call attention to the fact that 
the plea of tlie j)rotection of the first amendment is not valid, the courts 
have so held. The only validity of a ]dea is that it may de<irade or 
incrinunate her and that is the only stand she can have without bein<^ 
in contempt of the committee. 

Mrs. Baciihach. May I make a .statement on it? 

Mr. Hkiikrt. There is no statement to be made. That is an instruc- 

Mr. MuxnT. Proceed, Mr. Stripling. 

Mr. Stkii'Lixg. When and where were you born? 

Mrs. Baciihach. T was horn in Chicaj^o, 111. 

Mr. SrKii'i.ixc;. What year? 

Mrs. Bachrach. 18J)8. 

Mr. STRiri.ixo. Where were your parents born? 

Mrs. Bachrach. They were both born in Illinois. 

Mr. STKirLix<}. Have vou ever resided in Washiuirton, I). C? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I decline to answer the question, invokin«r a<zain 
my rijrht under the first amendment \n which I still believe that valid- 
it v resides, and also on the ground that it is within mv rijj:ht under 
the fifth amendment and that my answer mi<^ht possibly incriminate 

Mr. Stripltn-^o. Do you know William Z. Foster? 

Mr. MuNDT. The Chair insists that if you invoke your ii<j:hts under 
the fifth ameiulment, wdiich is the only one valid under this committee, 
that you spell oiit the reasons for invokin<r the fifth amendment. 

Mrs. Bachrach. On the grounds that the answer mi<rht tend to 
incriminate me. 

Mr. Strh'Ling. Do you knotv William Z. Foster? 

Mrs. Bachrach, I a<rain decline to answer on the jjround that this 
is an invasion of my ri<j:hts under the first amendment, privacy of 
association, and on the further <iround that under the fifth amendment 
the answer mi^ht tend to incriminate me. 

Mr, Striplixg, Do you know William Green? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. vS'iKiri-ixc;. Do you know Mayor O'Dwyer f 

Mr. MuxuT. I am sorry, you will have to spell it out. 

Mrs. B.\ciirach. On the jrrounds that this is a«rain williin my ri<:hts 
undei- the fii-st amendmcMit to i-efuse to reveal my assiM'iations and 
on the further ground under the fifth ameinhnent that an answer 
mi<rht tend to incriminate me. 

IVIr. Striplixg, Do you know Mayor O'Dwyer? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I do not. 

Mr. Stru'lixg. Do you know Senator Downey? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I do not. 

Mr. Strh'i.ixg. Do you know former Representative John M. Coffey 
of the State of Washin<rton ? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I do. 

Mr. Strh'i.ixg. Do you know former Representative Hufrh De Lacy 
of the State of Washington ? 

^^rs. Bachi{ach. I apiin decline to answer, exercising my rijjhts 
undei- the first amendment and also on the <rround that the answer 
mi«rht tend to incrimimite me and that I therefore have a right to 
refuse to answer under the fifth amendment. 


Mr. Stripling. Do you know Governor Dewey ? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I do not. 

Mr. Stripling. Do you know Alger Hiss ? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I again invoke my right under the first amend- 
ment and decline to answer on the ground that an answer might tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Rankin. Ask her if she knows former Congressman Savage of 

Mr. Stripling. Do you know former Congressman Savage of 
Washington ? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I do not. 

Mr. Stripling. Do you know Priscilla Hiss, the wife of Alger Hiss? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I again decline to answer on the ground that the 
question is an invasion of my rights under the first amendment and 
also I exercise my right under the fifth amendment to refuse to give 
an answer which might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Stripling. I. want you to bear in mind in answering the ques- 
tions which I am about to ask you the instructions of the committee 
that if you don't have any knowledge, you state so, but not a blanket 

Mrs. Bachrach. I understand. 

Mr. Stripling. Have you ever been in the home of Priscilla Hiss 
in Washington, D. C. ? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I decline to answer on the ground that the question 
is an invasion of my right under the first amendment and on the 
further ground that I choose to exercise my right under the fifth 
amendment and refuse to give an answer which might tend to in- 
criminate me. 

Mr. Stripling. Did you ever copy any documents from the De- 
partment of State? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I did not. 

Mr. Rankin. I want to call attention to the fact that the . first 
amendment has nothing whatever to do 

Mr. Mundt. She lias been so advised, but if she wants to reaffirm 
it, she may. 

Mr. Rankin. Tlie first amendment has nothing whatever to do 
witli the riglit of a witness to decline to answer testimony during a 
legitimate inquiry. 

Mr. INIundt. She has been so advised and if she refuses to repeat 
it, she has that privilege. 

Mr. Stripling. I will repeat the question. Did you ever copy any 
documents removed from tlie Department of State? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I did not. 

Mr. Stripling. Did you ever copy any documents removed from 
the Bureau of Standards? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I did not. 
^ Mr. Stripling. Did you ever copy any documents removed from the 
Xavy Department? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I did not. 

Mr. Stripling. Did you ever loan Mrs. Priscilla Hiss a typewriter? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I did not. 

Mr. Stripling. Did you ever see a typewriter in the home of Mrs. 
Priscilla Hiss ? 

80408—48 — pt. 2 7 


Mrs. Bachrach. I decline to answer on the ground that this is an 
invasion of my ri<:!:ht under first anicndnuMit and on the further 
ground that an answer might tend to incriminate me, invoking my 
right under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Sntu'LiNG. Do you know Donald Hiss? 

Mrs. BAcnHAcir. I (leclino to ans\\(>r on the ground that the question 
is an invasion of my rights under the iirst amendment aiul on the 
further ground that it is my right so to do, to decline under the fifth 
amendment because an answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Sthii'iino. Do you know Lee I*iessman'? 

Mrs. Baciiuacii. I decline to answer on the ground that this is 
also an invasion of my right under the first amendment, on the ground 
that it is my right to decline uiuler the fifth amendment because the 
answer might tend to inci-iminate me. 

Mr. Stkii'Lixc;. I shall ask the witness, Mr. Chairuuin, if she knows 
a list of individuals. If it is agreeable witli the witness and with the 
committee, if she replies, "Same answer" it will be jmdei'stood that she 
is giving the same gi-ounds that she has "just stated in answer as to 
whether or not she knows the individuals just mentioned. 

Mr. ^NfuNDT. Is that agreeable? 

Mr. Nixon. I have one question before you go into that list of 

Did Mrs. Alger Hiss ever deliver to you a typewriter? 

Mrs. Bachrach. She did not. 

Mr. MuNDT. I would like to ask the witness another question. Are 
you now or have you ever ])een a member of the (\)mmunist Party? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I decline to answer on the ground tliat this is a 
direct invasion of my right under the first amendment on the ground 
further that I have the right so to decline under the fifth amendment 
because an answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Muxnr. Go ahead. Mr. Stripling. 

Mr. Stripling. Do you know John Abt ? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I do. 

Mr. Stripling. Do you know Nathan Witt? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I decline to answer on the ground previously stated. 

Mr. Stripling. Do you know Henry Collins? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I decline to answer on the grounds previously 

Mr. Stripling. Do you know Charles Kramer or Charles Krevitsky, 
known under both names? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I decline to answer on the grounds previously sta- 

Mr. Stripling. Do you know Nathan Gregory Silvermaster? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I decline to answer on the grounds previously 

Mr. Stripling. Do you know William Ludwig I'llmann? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I decline to answer on the grounds previously 

Mr. Strtpijng. Do you know George Silverman? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I do not. 

Mr. Stripling. Do you know Irving Kaplan? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I decline to answer on the grounds previously 

IMr. Stripling. Do you know Victor Perlo ? 


Mrs. Bachrach. I decline to answer on the grounds previously 

Mr. Stripling. Do you know Elizabeth T. Bentley ? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I do not. 

Mr. Stripling. Do you know, or did you know Jacob N. Golos ? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I do not. 

Mr. Stripling. Do you know Eleanor Nelson ? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I decline to answer on the grounds previously 

Mr. Stripling. Do you know Harold Ware? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I decline to answer on the grounds previously 

Mr. MuNDT. Do you know Louis Budenz ? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I decline to answer on the grounds previously 

Mr. Kankin. Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons given for refusing 
to answer questions is that this is not a legal committee of Congress. 
I want to call the attention of the committee to the fact that the Com- 
munists raised that question and harped on it in the Dennis trial, 
and especially charged that I was not a legitimate Member of Congress. 

The Federal Court of Appeals answered it in no uncertain terms, 
stating that the contention was silly and ridiculous; that this was a 
legitimate committee of Congress and that I, John Rankin, from 
Mississippi, was a legal Member of the Congress of the United States. 

This committee is the only committee in Congress that has been 
determined to be legal by the courts and I am the only Member of 
Congress declared legally a Member of Congress. 

Mr. MuNDT. Proceed, Mr. Stripling. 

Mr. Stripling. I have no further questions. 

Mr. MuNDT. Did you ever discuss with Mrs. Hiss in any way the 
disposition of a typewriter ? 

Mrs. Bachrach. I did not, 

Mr. MuNDT. Why is it that you tell the committee that you know 
John Abt and refuse to answer on the grounds of self-incrimination 
the question of whether you know Nathan Gregory Silvermaster ? 

Mrs. Bachrach. My understanding of the fifth amendment is that 
it reserves to the person under examination the right to determine 
for herself what questions might tend to be incriminating. 

Mr. MuNDT. Only on the basis that those questions must legitimately 
be such that an answer would be self -incriminating, not just a willy- 
nilly decision to be made by the witness. 

Mrs. Bachrach. My further understanding of my rights under the 
fifth amendment is that the disclosure of reasons for willingness to 
answer some questions and refusal to answer others is tantamount to 
disclosing the ground which might be self-incriminating. 

Mr. Stripling. Are you related to John Abt ? 
_ Mr. Rankin. I want to point out that that has been harped on 
time and time again and I want to call the committee's attention to 
the fact that that provision of the fifth amendment merely applies 
to a person answering for a capital offense or other infamous crime. 
So unless it would incriminate her or stamp her as guilty of an in- 
famous crime, she has no right to refuse to answer these questions 
that are propounded by the committee — by members of the committee 
or by the investigator. 


Mr. MuNDT. Tlie chairman would like to state that the crime in- 
volved here is very definitely a capital crime. It is either treason 
in wartime or treason in peacetime. 

Mr. Rankin. What they are trying to shield here is treason because 
these documents were stolen during the war. That was brought out 
the other day. They were stolen after the fall of Pearl IIarl)oi-, some 
of them, and transmitted to foreign countries; so the i)oint 1 want 
to bring out here is that this was treason and we have the documents to 
show that this crime was committed. 

Mr. MuNm-. Mr. Stripling, have you further questions? 

Mr. Stripling. Yes. 

Mr. Bloch. May I ask a question ? 

Mv. Stiupijn-(;. I want to clear this up. 

Are you related to Jolm Abt? 

Mrs. Baciiracei. I am, 

Mr. Striplino. Would you give the committee 3'our i-elationship? 

Mrs. Bachracii. I am his sister. 

Mr. Stripling. That is all. 

Mr. McDowell. Do you know Vera M. Dean ? 

Mrs. Bachr^^ch. No. 

Mr. Stripling. I have one other question. 

Mr. Mundt. Proceed. 

Mr. Stripling. Have you ever been to the Soviet Union? 

Mrs. Baciirach. I have not. 

Mr. Mundt. Do you have any questions, Mr. Nixon? 

Mr. Nlxon. No questions. 

A fr. Mundt. Mr. McDowell? 

Mr. McDowell. No questions. 

Mr. Mundt. Mr. Rankin? 

Mr. Rankin. No questions. 

Mr. Mundt. Mr. Hebert? 

Afr. Hebert. No questions. 

Mr. Bloch. Mr. Chairman 

Mr. Mundt. Mi-s. Bacluacli, voii are dismissed for the time beinur 
and will be continued under subpena, and the committee will go into 
executive session at this time. 

Mr. Blocii. Before you conclude, may I ask a question? 

Mr. Mundt. Not at the moment. We will go into executive session 
at this time. 

Mrs. Bachrach. Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to read a 
statement at this time. 

Mr. MuNixr. Not at the moment. You are still under subpena. We 
will go into executive session. 

Mr. Block. Are we excused for the day? 

Mr. Mundt. For the day; yes. 

AHs. Baciirach. Does this mean I can return to New York? 

Mr. Mundt. You may. 

Mr. Rankin. Or Russia. 

Mr. Bloch. Until further subpena? 

Mr. MuNirr. Until further summons. 

Mr. Bloch. Until further summons. 

Mr. Mundt. The committee will adjourn. 

(Whereupon, at 11:25 a. m., the committee was recessed to recon- 
vene in executive session.) 



Abt, John 1381, 1472, 1474 

Acheson, Dean 1430 

Agriculture Department 1430 

Amerasia 1416, 1417 

American Cafe 1383 

American Legation, Vienna 138S 

Appell, Donald T 1381-1385 

Bachrach, Marion 1467-1474 

Bentlev, Elizabeth T 1381, 1426, 1432, 1446, 1473 

Eerie, Adolf A., Jr 1406, 1408-1410, 1414-1416, 1419, 1422, 1433 

Berle, Mrs. Adolf A., Jr 1406, 1407, 1414 

Bloch, Emanuel H 1468 

Book League of America 1400 

Brandt, William C 1464 

British Government 1419, 1421 

Budenz, Louis 1473 

Bullitt, William C 1392, 1410 

Bureau of Standards 1471 

Burtan 1412 

Bykov, alias Peters 1404 

Cairns 1430 

Canadian Royal Commission 1414, 1427 

Canadian Royal Mounted Police 1413 

Carl (alias lor Whittaker Chambers) 1432 

Chambers, Esther (Mrs. Whittaker Chambers) 1452,1457,1462 

Chambers, Whittaker (see also Carl; George Crosley) 1381-1383, 

13S8, 1400-1402, 1404-1410, 1413-1416, 1418-1426, 1428, 1430, 1432- 

1436, 1442, 1448, 1452-1465. 

Chicago Daily News 1400 

Clark, Tom C . 1417, 1464 

Cleveland, Robert 1388, 1456 

Coffee, John M 1470 

Collins, Henry 1381, 1472 

Committee of Imperial Defense 1419 

Crosley. George {see also Whittaker Chambers 1414, 1432, 1462 

Dean, Vera M 1474 

De Lacy, Hugh 1470 

Dewey, Thomas E 1471 

Dies committee (see also Special Committee on Un-American Activi- 
ties) 1404, 1415, 1418 

Downey 1470 

Dozenberg, Nick ^^ 1412 

Eisler, Gerhtirt 1432, 1444 

Eastman Kodak Co ^___ 1385, 1386 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 1397 

1410, 1411, 1433, 1443, 1445, 1446, 1455, 1459, 1460 

Federal Farm Board 1430 

Foreign Economic Administration 1430, 1439, 1441 

Forer, Joseph 1432, 1449 

Foster, William Z 1470 

Gayn, Marc 1417 

Golos, Jacob N 1473 

Gousenko 1413 

Grady, Henry 1430 

Green, William 1470 


Greenborg, Forer & Rein 1432, 1449 

Greeiibcrj,', llcrnian 1432, 1438, 1444, 1445, 1449 

(JrwntioM. Robert T 1389 

Hawkiii.s. Ilany C 1430,1431,1435 

Hay-Adams Hotel 1407, 1408 

Hearst Newspapers 1400 

Henderson, Loy 1410, 1412, 1416 

Hiss, Alger 13S1, 13S9, 1408, 

1413, 1410. 1424. 1432, 1433, 1435, 1441, 1455, 1456, 1462-1464. 1471 

Hiss, Mrs. Alger (Priscilla Hiss) 1441,1472,1473 

Hiss, Donald 1381, 1408, 1442, 1462. 1472 

Hiss, Priscilla {see also Mrs. Alger Hiss) 1381,1471 

Hitler, Adolf 1411 

Hull 1302 

Italian Government 1430, 1439 

Jaflfee, Phillip 1417 

Japanese Ambassador 1417 

Justice Depjirtraent 1416-1418, 1420, 1422, 1424, 1427, 1459, 1460, 1462 

Kansas City Star 1400 

Kaplan, Irving 1381, 1472 

King 1410 

King, Senator 1400 

Kramer, Charles (alias for Charles Krevitsky) 1472 

Kravchenko, Victor 1400 

Krevitsky, Charles (alias Charles Kramer) 1472 

Krivitsky, Walter... 1400, 1402-1406, 1409-1412, 1415, 1416, 1418, 1419, 1426, 1427 

Ladd, Senator 14(X) 

Larson, Emanuel 1417 

Levine. Isaac Don 1.399-1427 

Levine, Nathan L 1427,1451-1465 

Lewis, Keith B 1385-1387 

Lincoln. Eunice A 1389 

Linen, James A 1460 

London School of Economics 1430 

Lothian 1419 

Mclntyre. Marvin 1405, 1406 

Mitchell, Kate L 1417 

Mortimer, George Horace 1410 

NKVD 1409 

Navv Department 1471 

Neall. Adelaide 1410 

Nellis, Joseph 1444 

Nelson. p:ieanor 1473 

Nelson, Sieve 1468, 1469 

New York Globe 1400 

New York Tribune 1400 

Newcomb. Anna Belle 1389 

Nixon. Richard M 1385 

OGPU • 1409 

O'Dwycr. William , 1470 

Owens. Courtney E 1449-1450 

Oxford College 1430 

Pasvoisky, Leo 1430 

Perlo. Victor 1381. 1472 

Peters (alias for Bykov) 1404 

Peurifov, John 1389, 1391-1397 

Plain Talk 1400. 1417 

Pressman. I^ee 1.381, 1472 

Provost Marshal's Office . 1.381 

Rein. David 1432. 1449 

Roo.sevelt, Franklin Delano 1405,1409,1410 

Roth, Andrew 1417 

Saturday Evening Post 1403,1406,1410,1412 

Savage. Charles Raymon 1471 

Sayre, Francis H 1.387,1.389.1430.1441 

Service, John Stewart 1417,1418 

Silverman. George 1381, 1472 

Silvermaster, Nathan Gregory 1472, 1473 


Special Committee on Un-American Activities (see also Dies committee) __ 1404, 

1415, 1418 

Stalin. Josef 1404, 1411, 1426, 1427 

Stalin-Hitler pact 1405, 1406, 1411, 1416 

State Department 1379, 1386, 

1388-1390, 1393-1397, 1401, 1406-1408, 1412, 1414, 1416, 1417, 1420- 
1422, 1424, 1425, 1430-1435, 1439-1441, 1446-1448, 1463, 1464, 1471 

Stephens, Alexander 1381 

Stilwell, Joseph W 1417 

Stimson, Henry L 1406 

Stripling, Robert E 1380-1381 

Time Magazine 1405, 1457, 1458, 1460, 1461, 1464 

Treasury Department 1381 

UUmann, William Ludwig _ 1472 

United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration 1430, 1439, 1440 

United States Embassy, Moscow 1405 

University of Chicago 1430 

Valtin, Jan 1400 

Veterans' Administration 1383, 1384 

Voice of America 1423 

Wadleigh, Henry Julian 1429-1450, 1464 

Ware, Harold 1381. 1473 

Welles, Sumner 1386-1392 

Wheeler, William 1381-1385, 1387, 1393 

White, Harry Dexter 1381 

Winchell, Walter 1410, 1416 

Witt, Nathan 1381. 1472 

Woodley House 1406 

Yardley Act 1396 



3 9999 05445 3269 

Boston Public Library 
Centred Library, Copley Square 

Division of 
Reference and Research Services 

Social Sciences 

The Date Due Card in the pocket indi- 
cates the date on or before which this 
book should be returned to the Library. 









Boston Public Library 

This book is to be returned to the 
Library on or before the date last stamped 

FORM NO 609 7.1,5: ?5M, 

.■■■'■■■■■ •■■•^If^^^-^-^ 




-•- ^■,^:-<j,!.-v.'.„>-;.^«